missing title

Good morning, everyone.

April 15th, 2026, Land Use and Sustainability Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.32 a.m.

I'm Eddie Lynn, chair of the Land Use and Sustainability Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Council Member Foster.

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Chair Lin?

Present.

Vice Chair Strauss?

Present.

Thank you.

Chair, there are four members present.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you all for coming to this Wednesday morning meeting to discuss land use.

As always, thank you to our city clerks, council central staff, mayor's office, HSD, OPCD, and SDCI for helping us prepare for this meeting.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on the agenda or items within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We have 24 in-person speakers and 14 remote.

Okay.

Given that we have between 30 and 60 speakers, that means there will be one minute per speaker.

We will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

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

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

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

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

That is Angela Castaneda.

Thank you for hearing me, Council Members Lynn, Rink, and Foster.

As a girl growing up in Seattle, I experienced an unstable home situation and became one of Seattle's street kids.

I dealt with so much, learning to survive on my own, not always in safe situations, and I could so easily have not made it out.

The inequality gap between haves and have-nots continues to surge.

The situation demands that city leaders be vigilant and discerning, that the population mix is complicated, and those like me who face instability, those who find themselves down on their luck, and those who need treatment.

The situation demands that city leaders act to prioritize high-support shelter and pathways for transitional to permanent housing as centerpieces of the city's rapid shelter expansion.

For now, I'm one of the haves with a roof over my head and a leadership position in a nonprofit serving small business communities in Southeast Seattle.

But I still see through my kid eyes how we all are impacted every day by the ever-increasing population of underserved.

The only way this works is if Seattle commits to resourcing new shelters with intensive care management, ensuring at least two staff on-site and 24-7 basis, and round-the-clock availability of safety.

Thank you, Angela.

And if anyone, if you're unable to complete your testimony, please feel free to email us the remainder.

Apologies for the short time period for public comment.

Thank you all.

Our next several speakers will be in order.

Jessica Rowe, Kirk Kozlowski, Brian Walters, and Sam Wolf.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm Jessica Rowe, land use attorney, speaking on behalf of MRH Properties.

We're here to encourage your support for the housing opportunities legislation.

MRH owns property within the Fremont Hub urban village.

And it's not within the MIC, but it's currently zoned for industrial.

With this reason, I want to say also the existing industrial space on these properties is currently underutilized and struggled to retain tenants.

but alternatively, with this rezone, the site could provide over 300 units of housing, and residential is already permitted just one block north.

This is a great place to build housing and grow the vibrancy of Stoneway Corridor.

Therefore, we'd encourage your support for the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Kirk Kozlowski.

Good morning, Council.

Kirk Kozlowski with Saratoga Capital.

We are long-term families that own and operate and build in the Seattle marketplace.

We are currently under construction on some new multifamily projects in Ballard.

And we strongly support the Housing Opportunities Program.

We have a project right next to the Bell Street extension that can be the North Star, if you will, to Waterfront Seattle.

And we will talk further.

Our architect will speak further about this project as well.

Thank you.

Strongly support this.

Thank you so much.

And for folks, feel free to use any of the microphones if there's one that's better suited for you.

The next several speakers will be Brian Walters, Sam Wolf, Ben Mitchell, Alex Lofton, and Becca Rose.

Next up is Brian Walters.

Not seeing Brian, we'll move to Sam Wolf.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Sam Wolf, and I work for PDA.

We house the Co-Lead program, one of Seattle's high support shelter programs.

In the past weeks, you've heard from Co-Lead participants, as well as neighbors who live near Co-Lead sites, various customer satisfaction stories.

None of these stories are by luck.

They are rooted in program design.

This program design includes not just talented case managers, but having caseloads set at 12 to 15 participants per case manager.

This is the fidelity standard for intensive caseloads, the gold standard for working with people who have complex needs, which REACH data shows represents over 60% of people currently living unsheltered today.

CoLEAD's success also hinges on having 24-7 access to safety and de-escalation teams who are capable of responding and problem solving to issues in co-lead sites.

These features are what enable shelter providers to be good neighbors but are very infrequently funded as part of contracts.

This must change both for participants and neighbors alike.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next approved, Ben Mitchell.

Hi, good morning.

My name's Ben Mitchell.

I'm a District 2 resident, and I'm with the Organization for Seattle.

I'm here today to ask that you pass the Housing Opportunities Package.

This legislation will help create the conditions to get apartment construction moving again.

When we were the fastest growing city in the country, we missed the opportunity with our land use policy to harness the growth and allow housing supply to meet demand.

We left tax revenue on the table, allowed home prices to soar, and created cutthroat competition over existing homes.

Now we're in an environment where applications to add new homes in Seattle are down 88% from their 2020 peak, and we need to do whatever we can to get apartment construction moving again.

This housing opportunities package does just that.

Please grab this low-hanging fruit and pass the Housing Opportunities Package.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alex Lofton.

Good morning, council members.

Good to see you again.

My name is Alex Lofton, resident of District 3 in the CD, and I'm helping pull together the group for Seattle.

And I'm here today to ask you to move forward the housing opportunities package.

I spent the last decade building a company helping people like nurses, teachers, firefighters be able to afford buying homes in the communities that they serve.

One thing I learned from that work is you can do all the innovation and finance you want, But if there ain't enough homes to buy, then they keep going to folks who can outbid the folks who don't have enough money for down payments.

So HOP addresses what's actually blocking more homes from being added, specifically zoning restrictions that prevent more homes being built, design rules that add a lot of cost, which limits the number of homes, allowing more empty buildings sitting to become homes.

So this is really just about who gets to live here, not just who can outbid and outspend other folks, but everyone.

So thank you very much.

Please move it forward.

Thank you.

Our next several speakers in order will be Becker Rose, Vinay Maskaranahas, Ruth Deitz, and Trevor Reed.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Becca Rose.

I'm a District 2 resident, a member of 4th Seattle, and a fourth generation Seattleite.

And I know I'm here to support HOP today.

Opponents of zoning reform talk a lot about preserving the local character of Seattle.

And there's a different type of local character that I want to talk about today, which is I remember Seattle when the people who made the city run could afford to live here.

The bartenders, and the teachers, and the artists, the social workers could afford to be our neighbors.

And this, to me, the fact that they can't anymore is a huge loss of character in a city with a deep working class history.

I support HOP because zoning creates density, which creates supply, which creates affordability.

So I'm asking you all to also support HOP and move it forward so that the people who make the city run can afford to live here and one day my kids can afford to be fifth generation Seattleites.

Thank you.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Vinay Mascarenhas.

I'm a resident of Mount Baker, and I work in primary care.

I'm also a founding member of For Seattle.

I'm asking you to move the housing opportunity zoning amendments forward today.

Over the past 10 years, I've seen multiple health care workers leave Seattle because they can no longer afford housing here.

Last year, we had to say goodbye to close friends of ours, one a social worker and another a home health nurse, who left Seattle because they couldn't afford a decent place to live.

I miss them, and their patients miss them too.

I want to live in a city that attracts and retains health care workers, and increasing the housing supply is an essential step in the right direction.

Please move this bill forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next several speakers will be Ruth Deit, Trevor Reed, Steve Rubistello, Mike Brown, and Matt Davies.

I'm here to bring your attention once more to two high-level studies that came out after the One Seattle Plan was adopted.

One from the National Bureau of Economic Research titled, Supply Constraints, i.e.

Zoning and Development Regulations Do Not Explain House Price and Quantity Growth.

And the other from the London School of Economics titled, Inequality Not Regulation Drives American Housing Affordability Crisis.

Notably, they find affordability is most challenging in regions like Seattle, where individuals with stagnant wages compete with concentrations of high income households for limited land, locations, and amenities.

They urge new thinking about housing systems.

and the target moderate and low-income households rather than relying on zoning and filtering.

If we believe mass upzoning and deregulation will significantly improve affordability, these studies say we will be disappointed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

My name is Trevor Reed, and I'm a land use planner.

And I'm here with 4Seattle to speak in favor of the housing opportunity zoning amendments.

As you are aware, permitting and current construction have hit new lows, exacerbating our housing crisis.

This legislation will unstick thousands of units, providing a needed boost both to housing production and a stagnating construction sector.

Please adopt this deeply pragmatic and common sense legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A big lie with a lot of money behind it goes on forever.

I salute Seattle's land use policy.

Look out the window and you can see some of the results.

The biggest problem we have is not number of units, it's affordable units.

And the housing policies of Seattle continue to rip out the affordable units.

And if we continue doing that, we will continue to put more pressure on the street.

Now the small houses.

You're going to be judged on that.

How well the security is around them.

The last Thank you, Steve.

Next up, we have Mike Brown, followed by Matt Davies, Jesse Cervantes, Elizabeth Aylward, and Lisa Olmsted-Thompson.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Mike Brown.

I'm a representative with the North Coast States Carpenters Union, and we are in strong support of CB 12-1196.

This is about more than just housing.

It's about creating real, life-changing careers.

We are actively training construction workers and contractors in mass timber construction with hands-on experience that prepares people for what's next.

That means opportunities, especially in areas and communities that have not always had access to these careers.

We are creating pathways into apprenticeships to make sure these opportunities are real.

When we move projects forward, we are investing in people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name's Matt Davies.

I'm representing the North Coast States Carpenters Union.

I speak in strong favor of CB 12-1196.

Right now, Washington is leading the nation in construction job losses.

And here in Seattle, we're feeling it.

At the same time, housing production is slowing down, and we can't afford to sit on that.

CB 12-1196 is about getting people back to work and getting housing built.

It removes barriers to modern building methods like mass timber and modular construction, helping us build faster and smarter.

This aligns with the Seattle Green New Deal, investing in infrastructure, reducing emissions, and making sure overburdened communities benefit It also connects to SMC 2340-090 and HB 1183, Section 6, by creating access to apprenticeship pathways and inclusive workforce opportunities.

We're already training for this work.

The workforce is ready.

We just need the opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And let the record show that Council President Hollingsworth is joining us.

Good morning.

Thank you.

So now we have Jesse Cervantes followed by Elizabeth Aylward and Lisa Olmsted-Thompson.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Jess Cervantes, representing the North Coast State's Regional Council of Carpenters.

Washington is leading the nation in construction job losses.

Housing production has slowed down.

That's not something we can sit on.

CB 12-11-96 is about getting people back to work and getting housing built.

This legislation removes barriers to modern building methods like mass timber and modular construction, tools that help us build faster and smarter.

Through the North Coast State's Regional Council of Carpenters, we are already training members and contractors on mass timber.

We're not talking about the future.

We're preparing for it right now.

That means real opportunities.

good-paying jobs, access to pre-apprenticeship programs, and pathways into registered apprenticeships that lead to long-term careers.

We're ready to build.

We just need the opportunity.

We urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Aylward.

Good morning.

My name is Elizabeth Aylward.

I'm a new resident of West Seattle, and I'm here to support the Housing Opportunities Package.

I'm joined here by other members of the For Seattle Project, an organization whose goal is to promote common sense solutions to some of the city's most intractable problems.

As a volunteer of the West Seattle Neighbors Shelter, I see the effects of housing shortage face to face.

Experts studying homelessness agree that the most basic solution to homelessness is more housing, and a major impediment to more housing in places like Seattle is excessive regulation.

HOP will make common sense modifications to zoning regulations and provide construction incentives that will lead to more affordable choices in housing.

Support this and move it forward.

Lisa Olmsted Thompson.

Good morning.

My name is Lisa Olmsted Thompson and I am a resident of District 1 and I am also here with for Seattle.

I am here to ask that you pass the housing opportunities package.

I am a parent of young kids and as we are growing our community, more and more families are sharing with us that they are considering leaving because they are struggling to find the spaces that they need for their families.

People want to live here.

I want neighbors and city residents who are invested and rooted in this community not commuting long hours and not feeling insecure about their housing.

The housing opportunities package will help make that happen.

It will allow more home choice so that more people can find a place to live here.

but most importantly, it will create more communities that will want the best for the city because it is their home.

The policy work for this package is done.

Let's drive it home.

Thank you.

Next up we have Bob Aylward.

Good morning.

My name is Bob Elward.

Thank you for letting me make some comments to you here.

I'm here talking for myself as well as the for Seattle group.

And we are in favor of the amendments for the hop.

The rationale that I bring to this is I look at my children and their generation who are facing so much more of an uphill climb than my wife and I ever did when we moved to Seattle 30 years ago.

And we think that housing is the linchpin to a lot of the issues facing this generation.

So we ask you to start chipping away at those issues by passing these amendments and continuing to look for other opportunities to make their lives better and make Seattle the great city we all want it to be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jess Yang followed by Carolyn Villanova.

Good morning, Chair Lin and Council.

I'm Jess Yang, a Ballard homeowner who wants to make room for more neighbors in this wonderful city we call home.

I'm here with 4 Seattle to ask you to move the Housing Opportunities Zoning Amendment forward, or HOP, which I will call it as I go onward.

As we're all aware, we have a shortage of housing here in Seattle.

HOP is the kind of response that we should prioritize.

Legislation that has already been drafted and reviewed and can kickstart projects that are ready to go.

I've been advocating for a better comp plan for over a year now.

And while that important legislation will guide our ability to produce housing for the next decade, I know it's unlikely to unlock housing with the immediacy that we need.

That's why I encourage you to move HOP forward.

We need to both plan for the future and respond to the moment with urgency.

HOP helps affordable home builders and market rate developers.

I see it as a win-win-win.

A win for affordability, for more choices, and a win for those who want to live in Seattle and support our communities.

So thank you so much for your continued work.

Thank you.

Nice to meet you, Carolyn Villanueva.

Good morning, council, and thank you for letting me comment today.

My name is Caroline Villanova, and I'm the Director of Government Relations and Community Impact at the Seattle Parks Foundation.

We are fully supportive of the need for additional housing in this city for current and future residents.

A livable city is one where families can thrive, and if you design with kids in mind, you need to consider safety, play, and access to nature.

That's critical.

Please require public space and public amenity improvements when considering every regional area and neighborhood area plan because these are places where people can actually enjoy the city.

And also please consider tying public amenity improvements such as parks like Cal Anderson Lid Park at the last comp plan when considering rezoning.

So thank you for today.

Thank you.

Our next four speakers will be, in order, Lisa Nitze, Jasmine Smith, Kara Williams, and Marta Kidan.

Hi, I'm Lisa Nitze.

Thank you for letting me speak this morning.

I'm here to ask you to support CB 121195 for shelter expansion.

I chair the Downtown Seattle Association's Street to Housing Initiative, and this is the moment for us to act on homelessness.

I applaud the mayor for sticking a stake in the ground and saying we are going to do this and do it now together.

And I applaud the council for partnering with the mayor on this and clearing obstacles to doing what many, many cities have been doing all over the country.

Seattle has experienced and professional micro-unit village operators, we have excellent micro-unit manufacturers, we have highly professional service and support providers, and we all recognize that with scaling this solution to homelessness, there is a mandate for every single village to model excellent good neighbor practices and, importantly, for all neighborhoods to do the same.

Thank you to the City Council for your caring and thoughtful action to move now on making the proliferation of desperately needed microunit villages possible.

Thank you, Lisa.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jasmine Smith.

Good morning.

My name is Jasmine Smith.

I am Director of Local Advocacy at FutureWise and District 7 resident.

I'm here speaking in support of the Housing Opportunity Package because as we look comprehensively at how we ensure that everyone in Seattle has the opportunity to live, work, and stay here, it's important to do everything we can and not just with zoning.

But looking at it holistically, looking at it from that flexibility for mass timber, for passive house, and for modular homes, there's so many great technologies coming out that are really making a space for us and letting us do so in a sustainable way.

When we're ensuring that every corner of the city has access to grocery stores and interconnected communities, that's so crucial when we're losing our last one in Lake City.

When we ensure that we can stay in our communities, we love that we can have all that opportunity to build a vibrant and connected area.

Our downtown to every corner of the city deserve a great and green Emerald City that they can afford to live in.

Thank you.

Next up we have Kara Williams.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Kara Williams.

I live in D3 and work at the Low Income Housing Institute.

I am here today to speak in support of CB121195.

We are in dire need of shelter that provides people a roof over their heads, a door that locks, a space of their own, wraparound case management, behavioral health care when necessary, and other supportive services.

Expanding current shelter sites with necessary supportive services is a fast and effective way to save lives.

I support an increase of the citywide limit for transitional campments from 100 to 150 people and allowing select sites to serve up to 250 people.

You heard me say last night that service providers are ready to ensure public safety at new shelter sites, to provide supportive services, to collaborate closely with neighbors, and to meet people where they are on the path to permanent housing.

Thank you for your commitment to ending homelessness in our city.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Marta Kidane.

Thank you, council members, for taking the time to hear from community members this morning.

My name is Marta Kidane, and I'm the community engagement manager at Low Income Housing Institute.

We believe that the homelessness crisis in Seattle needs to be addressed in line with the vastness of the needs of our unhoused neighbors.

We need Moore's high support shelter that provides wraparound services.

Our tiny house village model has been effective to meet our neighbors' deeper needs because they are low barrier and provide supportive services on site.

Case managers and mental health providers help support clients in feeling safe and walk alongside them as they find their balance after having lived with the unpredictability of being unhoused in our city.

More clients need more access to services like these, so we ask that you expand the census and services in kind.

To connect our community together, please pass Council Bill 121195. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move on to our remote speakers, starting with Logan Schmitz.

Logan, please press star six.

Good morning, Chair Lin and members of the committee.

My name is Logan Schmidt, representing the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

I'm a D5 resident.

MBAC supports policies that unlock housing supply, and we're encouraged to see that this legislation is intentionally equity-focused.

To be 121-196 is a practical step forward addressing our housing shortage while ensuring that growth benefits more communities.

This rezoning will help spur new development without creating displacement pressure, something that is critically important as we work towards balancing growth with stability for existing residents.

We're pleased to see the adoption of Housing Bill 10402. Expanding development standards waivers to include low-rise and neighborhood residential zones will make it easier to convert existing commercial buildings into housing.

This not only creates much-needed homes more quickly, but also promotes environmental sustainability for adaptive reuse rather than ground-up construction.

We urge your support for the bill.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Tommy Truss.

Good morning, Council, and thank you so much for hearing comments.

I have the privilege of working for Evo and Evolution Projects, and over the last 14 years, we've been so lucky to call Stoneway home.

We've seen it transition from light industrial to a mix of retail, office, and housing, and we've been thrilled to be part of this transition.

We see our campus Seattle as an embodiment of this.

We've brought together a mix of uses from Brooks' headquarters to our flagship, bouldering projects, etc.

We would love to continue to broaden these uses as we develop the next phase of campus.

We strongly support this change.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Mark Olthoff.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Mark Olthoff, the principal and owner at Olsen-Kwindig.

We're located in Pioneer Square, practicing architecture in Seattle for 60 years and working on projects, have worked on projects throughout Seattle.

I'm speaking in support of the housing opportunities legislation.

We're fortunate enough to work with Saratoga on the Saratoga capital on the triangular site bordered by Elliott Way and Bell Street, which is included within the proposed legislation.

The legislation supports positive change and increased housing critically across Seattle's neighborhoods, and specifically at the Elliott and Bell site, which offers a unique and exciting opportunity to revitalize the next link in the post-biotic city and create a vital connection from the market neighborhood to Belltown.

In our analysis, the proposed height limit brings approximately 150 additional residential units to market at just the Elliott Bell site compared to the- Thank you for your time and for your effort on this critical work.

Thank you, Mark.

Next up, we have Carter Nelson.

Carter, yep, you got it.

Good morning, Chair Lin and members of the committee.

Carter Nelson on behalf of NAEP Washington State, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, speaking in support of the Housing Opportunities Package.

NAOP represents the contractors, engineers, attorneys, developers, builders, and more who are responsible for delivering much of Seattle's market rate since housing, and we strongly support this legislation.

The proposal takes a practical approach by moving quickly in areas that are well-positioned to absorb additional housing capacity without creating displacement pressure.

We appreciate the City advancing targeted zoning and code changes now, while continuing to work on the long-term comprehensive plan process in parallel.

This creates a clearer, more workable path to unlocking housing capacity.

We also support early implementation of House Bill 1183 to remove code barriers to passive house, modular, and mass timber construction.

Clearer compliance pathways will improve feasibility and reduce delays in project delivery.

Our members are ready to help deliver the housing Seattle needs, and we value being a partner in that effort.

Thank you, Carter.

Next up, we have Scott Clark.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Scott Clark.

I'm a long-time Seattle architect and partner at Clark Farms.

One of our mass timber housing projects is on page 12 of the briefing package you were provided.

As an architect, employer, and resident, I'm here to strongly support every element of this legislation because at this critical moment, it will help jumpstart stalled housing development and reestablish lost design, engineering, and construction jobs.

Today, we're facing a sharp contraction in the housing pipeline.

New permit applications are down nearly 90% from the 2020 peak.

and completions have fallen roughly 35% year-over-year.

Projects that have been carrying us through the pandemic and economic slowdown this past six years are near completion, and without action, we are heading towards a significant drop in new housing supply that will take years to correct.

This legislation directly addresses that challenge by creating a clearer, more feasible path to build on well-located urban sites, reduces barriers, adds flexibility, and

Thank you, Scott.

Next up, we have David Gill.

Good morning.

This is David Gill.

I'm a 30-year resident of Seattle, a homeowner living in District 2. My two adult children cannot afford to live in the city that they were born, which kills me.

And I support both a housing affordability plan and also Mayor Wilson's plan to increase shelter immediately.

So please support both pieces of legislature today.

And thank you very much for your time.

Next up, we have Jason Limp.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Jason Limp, President of VN Builders.

We are a 100% employee-owned construction company headquartered in Belltown.

I'm here today to speak in support of the Housing Opportunities legislation.

Our 1,100 employees believe deeply in downtown Seattle's success.

We also believe that sustainable construction using new technologies like mass timber construction will help the city and the region meet both our housing and climate goals, while supporting our local carpenters and union trade partners.

The housing opportunities legislation is important because it will implement House Bill 1183, which incentivizes mass timber construction throughout the city by making it easier to build, which reduces cost, providing more housing opportunities.

Most importantly, the housing opportunities will help build more housing in Seattle, especially downtown.

As a downtown business, we want more residents downtown to help make our neighborhoods more active and vibrant.

We applaud the city for continuing to take these necessary steps to providing new housing in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Andrea Breda.

Good morning, members of the City Council.

My name is Andrea Breda, and I'm here to support the proposed legislation CB 12-1196 and the related Fremont-Stoneway rezone.

I own four parcels located on one of the blocks that's being considered for the Fremont Rezone.

This block is located between North 34th, North 35th, Downway North, and Woodland Park Avenue North.

I'm a fourth generation owner and manager of these properties.

My great grandparents first bought one of the properties and made it their home in 1912. And I've watched the neighborhood and community evolve over four decades.

My view is that the highest and best use for the redevelopment of the block will enable the production of additional housing for Seattle residents.

Ideally, this future development would support entry-level home buyers, small business, and also emphasize public space and attractions for the local and greater Seattle community.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.

Next up, we have Scott Gladesbrook.

Hello, my name is Scott Glazebrook.

I'm here virtually to support the proposed legislation CB121196 that will lead to additional housing production sooner than later.

Ongoing housing challenges affect those in greater need of housing, those emerging into the housing economy, and those who have struggled the most to remain housed.

This legislation has the potential to kickstart an increase in housing production, helping with housing affordability passively by increasing supply and actively through the mandatory housing affordability program.

The seven specific proposed goals align with where growth is already occurring in our city, where neighborhoods are in transition, where new technologies promise quicker and less expensive housing but need initial support to build momentum, and to remove barriers to unique opportunities to make our communities better.

I'd like to specifically highlight one of these goals.

Fremont's Stoneway ReZone, this ReZone proposal to NC3 will allow housing plus larger residential uses in new developments to complement the growing commercial presence along Stoneway.

Any of the uses in current IC zone will be allowed in NC3 zone.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Chris Gillette.

Chris, please press star six.

Gillette, I'm speaking on behalf Good morning, Council.

My name is Chris Gillette and I'm speaking on behalf of Orton Development, ownership of the historic Joseph Vance Building on 3rd and Union.

We are in support of CB 121196. This legislation will greatly increase the feasibility of converting our vacant office building to much needed residential apartments and will encourage landmarking of this historic asset.

Thank you to the Office of Planning and Development for their efforts on this important legislation.

Nice to be with you.

Andy Campbell.

Yeah, hi.

Good morning.

Yeah, I just wanted to express strong support for the housing opportunities package.

I am a housing developer.

I'm also a longtime resident of the city of Seattle.

And through both of those lenses, I am really concerned about where the housing supply cliff is headed in Seattle now.

I think there should be a side alarm fire for our city and At the same time, I think the deck has never been more stacked against new project starts.

And so legislation like this that removes roadblocks to housing production is really the only way that we can get housing starts back on track as a city.

And I think this legislation has spent a ton of time with city staff and stakeholders.

It is hyper-focused.

It will spur real project starts in these areas that it's focused on.

I see zero negatives in moving this forward.

I think it's something tangible that the council can do near term right now to address the housing shortage.

And I just wanted to voice strong support for that and thank the committee for reviewing action like this.

It's exactly what Seattle needs right now.

Thanks.

Next up we have Jesse Simpson.

Hey, good afternoon, council members.

I'm Jesse Simpson here on behalf of the Housing Development Consortium to testify in strong support of the Housing Opportunities Legislation.

This is a straightforward set of zoning changes that will help affordable housing development move forward and help address our housing shortage.

That zoning capacity removes known code barriers and unlocks sites that are positioned to deliver affordable housing in the near term.

For our members, the impact is immediate.

This will help projects led by Mount Baker Housing and Rainier Beach IMCA in the University District in Madison Valley and Lehigh in the University District move forward without needing to wait for additional process through the comprehensive plan update.

The housing opportunities legislation will allow more homes on an accelerated timeline, and I urge you to pass legislation quickly.

Thanks.

Thank you, Jesse.

Last, we have David Haynes.

Hi, we need to take the restrictions that are still in the comprehensive plan.

We need to build higher and with more robust floor spaces.

And we need the qualified developers, not these non-profits that have to hire somebody else to do the job they claim that they're qualified for.

But I want to address the desperate need to solve the homeless crisis and all the people that are suffering last night.

King County Regional Homeless Authority doesn't think it's bad enough.

And you all want to expand the offerings of shelter in certain areas.

But if you have a lot of self-destructive behaviors and there's a lot of people causing trouble for innocent homeless people in an encampment, it stands to reason that you still need to use the resources that are available, such as the noble use of the National Guard to stand up 500 capacity of an authorized encampment and send certain people there to focus on the drug addiction and let innocent people go to the tiny house village first instead of allowing all these...

Chair, that is our last speaker.

Okay.

Since there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our items of business.

But before we do so, I just want to thank you all for coming to testify today.

This was not necessarily intentional, but I think it's interesting that we have These two pieces of legislation before us that in many ways tackle the interrelated issues around homelessness, around our housing costs, housing production.

And I think we've heard a lot of great testimony addressing sort of the whole range of needs in our community, whether it's shelter, mental health, behavioral health, robust support, but also the real affordability issues, the need to address economic inequality, as well as the need for good jobs, for supporting new types of construction like mass timber as the evergreen state, a green city, we should be leaders in this type of technology.

So anyway, I just want to thank you all for being here.

Super excited to get on to our orders of business, but just wanted to say those few words.

We'll now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one?

Agenda item one, Council Bill 121195, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, adopting interim provisions to expand the capacity of transitional encampments and amending sections 2342054 and 2342056 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

And I'd like to hand this over to Councilmember Foster as our sponsor of this legislation.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I really appreciate it and I appreciate your comments too on how meaningful it is to have both of these pieces of legislation up in front of us for discussion today.

So I will share a few words.

I want to start by saying thank you to the mayor's office and team for bringing this legislation forward.

and in particular for sending this down for us so quickly and working in collaboration over the last few weeks to ensure that we refine the details of this proposal to bring us to what is in front of us today.

As we all know, we have been in a homelessness state of emergency since 2015, but we've certainly been in a homelessness crisis since long before then.

Yet later today, the women in black will hold a vigil for the people who died outside last month.

Later today, I will be going with outreach workers to connect with people who are living in RVs across our city.

And we know that today we have more than 2,000 McKinney-Vento youth, so homeless youth, in Seattle public schools.

Today, we are looking at more than 16,000 people experiencing homelessness across King County.

We are still in crisis, and that demands urgency.

And it is also incredibly important that we get the details of this expansion right through ensuring that as we bring these new and expanded shelters online that we have sufficient resources to support the diversity of needs that are happening in our community.

At a high level, this legislation allows us to expand our capacity in our transitional encampments with a focus on tiny house villages so we can serve more people more quickly.

We know that one of the biggest constraints that we're dealing with right now is funding, and I'm really proud of us as a council for the legislation we passed yesterday.

But we also know a constraint is sites.

And with sites limited, we need to be smarter about how we use the ones that we have.

So yesterday we passed legislation that allows the city to lease land for transitional encampments and also includes new funding to help stand up additional shelter units.

Today, as we're considering this legislation, we are aligning our land use authority funding and implementation tools to actually deliver more units of shelter.

As I mentioned before, over the last several weeks since this legislation was sent down, my office has engaged deeply with the mayor's office as well as with providers across their city, and I want to thank them for their time.

What we've heard is clear that there is a real opportunity to operate larger sites in a way that works, and that opportunity is reflected in some of the preintroduction changes that, colleagues, you've seen in the legislation in front of us today.

Those changes include focusing on a single pilot site that can go up to 250 residents and providing clearer definitions around what transitional encampments mean.

So focusing specifically on tiny house villages and RVs.

We are doing this in the context of a lot of uncertainty in our community.

So we want to make sure that we are being focused, that we are being strategic, and we are being realistic about the resources and the attention that's going to be needed to operate this project at scale.

So this proposal reflects that close coordination between my office and the mayor's office and with this coming to committee, I'm excited to continue this conversation with colleagues.

Lastly, as a reminder, colleagues, I mentioned this at council briefing earlier this week.

Any potential amendments are due on the 22nd.

We will have this up for discussion on the 29th and have this voted out of committee on the 6th before coming to full council.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Our representatives and presenters, can you please introduce yourselves and proceed?

Thank you.

We will start with a round of introductions, and then I'll kick off our presentation.

My name is Kate Burnett-Cruiser, SHEHER Chief of Staff to Mayor Wilson, and I'll pass it to my right.

Good morning.

John Grant, Senior Policy Advisor, he, him pronouns with the Mayor's Office.

Liz Van Bemmel, Housing Policy Advisor for SDCI, SHEHER.

Hi, Jennifer Labreck, City Council Central Staff.

Cato Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Chris Clayson, he, him pronouns.

I'm the Homelessness Division Director at the Human Services Department.

Dee Llamini, she, her pronouns, CFO at Human Services Department.

Allison Holcomb, she, her pronouns, Executive Operations Manager for Public Safety in Mayor Wilson's office.

Thank you everyone at this table for joining us today.

Thank you Land Use Chair Councilmember Lin for hosting us.

Thank you Councilmember Foster for sponsoring this legislation.

I'm not sure he's on the call still but I want to thank Councilmember Strauss for his sponsorship of the bills that passed yesterday and thank you to all the Councilmembers here today and those yesterday who unanimously passed yesterday's legislation.

And finally, I'll thank the people who provided some public comment today sharing their experience working in the shelter system or as neighbors or partners who are interested in seeing this move forward.

We so appreciate the council's partnership and leadership with the mayor's office on doing something ambitious right out the gate.

We know it's been a bit of a breakneck pace, and we really appreciate your willingness to work with us quickly and try something together.

We're excited to dive in today about what the last piece of this particular policy package looks like, and we're really looking forward to continuing to work with you all on the details and implementation to make sure this is successful so that we can make a real impact on reducing homelessness in our community.

So the reason we're here today is to discuss legislation around census numbers at individual sites.

The reason we brought this to you all today is the mayor's office convened an interdepartmental team earlier this year to identify policy changes that could facilitate the expansion of transitional encampments in our city.

And one of the areas of opportunity they identified was expanding the number of people who can be housed at an individual site.

Our current land use code limits sites to 100 people.

When we have limited publicly available sites for micro shelter, we wanna make sure we are using our public resources well and responsibly and efficiently.

And so we would like to see the opportunity to expand the number of people cited at those locations.

For example, we have some publicly owned sites that have a micro shelter sited already, and some of those have unused land.

We'd like to be able to use that land.

So with that, I'm gonna pass it to my colleague, John, who will get us into the details of this particular legislation.

Good morning, council members, and I will try to keep this part of the presentation brief, because I know that central staff has a more extensive presentation.

to go over some of the nuances of the policy.

But at a high level, what we're looking to do is to pass interim legislation that would allow for micromodular shelters and RV and vehicle safe lots to go from a limitation of 100 people per site to 150 people citywide, and to allow for one site, again, limited to micromodular shelters and RV safe lots, to go up to 250 people.

And I think it's important to note for the public that this is a bit of a small change to the original legislation.

We've made some pre-introduction changes so that we can narrow the focus of the legislation towards one pilot program that would be at that larger 250-person site.

And I think the intent there is to kind of demonstrate that one, you know, we can do it and we can do it well, and that we are moving at a pace that is reasonable and develop appropriate policies and procedures to do so.

This would be interim legislation that expires after 12 months.

There is an emergency clause in the legislation.

Normally, the way this would work is that SDCI would have to do a SEPA analysis before we could move forward with the policy, but given the urgency of this matter, this will allow the council to adopt the interim legislation, and then SDCI concordantly can proceed with the SEPA analysis at the same time, so that by the time that you introduce permanent legislation, all of that analysis and the SDCI department will produce a report to finalize the legislation along the terms that the council deems satisfactory.

So what are we trying to accomplish today?

I think that what we are seeing across the country is that there are successful models of large micromodular shelters.

Seattle is one of the first of the nations to innovate and create this model, but typically tiny house villages or micromodular programs range between 50 units to about, at biggest, 85 units.

but what we are seeing across the country is that other cities have taken this model and expanded it significantly, with some sites going as large as 100 to up to 220 units per site or sometimes more.

The largest site that we found actually serves over 300 people in a single location.

So here are just some examples.

There's Tampa Hope, which is in Tampa, Florida, that has 215 units plus 116 platform tents that serves 345 people.

You may all recall that the executive director from Tampa Hope actually testified at the last Land Use Committee meeting and gave some helpful information about how that site operates.

And I'll talk more about Tampa Hope in just a moment.

There's also Genesis Pallet Shelter in Chico, California that is 177 units serving 200 people.

Arroyo Seco Village in Los Angeles serving 168 people.

And the West LA Veterans Association that is serving approximately 200 people at that site.

So just to do kind of a recap of what we heard from Tampa Hope, again, this is like a really exciting program.

You heard from Executive Director Maggie Rogers talk about her experience standing up this program over a number of years.

It's operated by Catholic Charities, currently serving 345 people, and they actually plan to expand to serve up to 400 people with 400 beds, which is pretty impressive.

The services are pretty similar to what we would find at some of our micro modular shelters.

They provide financial management classes, substance use and mental health treatment on site, case management services on site, three daily meals, clothing, medical care, and life skills and financial management classes.

I think there were a lot of questions around like the staffing model.

And so we reached out after the meeting.

I know some council members had additional questions about like, how is this staffed?

And so we wanted to kind of get those details.

And what we learned from Tampa Hope is that they have about eight case managers on site, two outreach staff, and then 13 shelter monitors that provide the 24 seven staffing.

since they've opened.

They've already housed 550 people.

So the program has been successful at getting folks into housing.

So important to this conversation is the public safety discussion and making sure that these sites are operated.

And this is something that not just applies to this larger 250-person site, but potentially to also Sorry.

Potentially also any micromodular program.

We wanted to make sure that there is operational safety.

And some of the things that we saw at these larger sites consistently was that they have a 24-7 staffing model, that they have defined boundaries, you know, secure entry into the site.

All of these programs, you know, we want to see a strong resident code of conduct.

And we have samples of those from existing providers that we're happy to share with the council to kind of give you a picture of the details of that.

But generally, you know, you can't have weapons on this site.

You can't be, you know, conducting any kind of illegal activity.

There needs to be essentially good neighbors, just both to the folks that are in the program and the surrounding area.

Already in city code, there is a requirement for each of these transitional encampment programs, as they're called in the code, a community advisory committee.

This is a monthly meeting where staff will actually meet directly with constituents, with with people in the neighborhood, local businesses, and everybody can participate in a conversation directly with the actual staff that operate the site and provide that direct input and feedback to make sure that the site is being operated well.

And also, ways to support it.

You know, many times these are the group of folks that are doing like food drives or clothing drives for folks that are in the shelter.

One of the key things, too, is having a strong good neighbor agreement or as the council is, you know, kind of investigating, you know, neighborhood mitigation plans.

I know that Councilmember Kettle has been great on leading on this issue so that we can always strengthen and improve these.

But in every single contract for the providers that are providing these services, there is a requirement to have a good neighbor agreement.

There's also going to be safety considerations in the design of these programs.

This is in partnership with the Seattle Police Department, which does a CEPTED review of sites, and this is a way to make sure that, you know, lines of sight, lighting, access points, that there's kind of a public safety lens on how these are built to make sure that they are safe.

And then lastly but not least, the fire department always reviews every single site plan before these are stood up and does a final walkthrough before the site opens to make sure that they meet fire code.

How am I doing on time?

Yeah, we were just trying to fix the presentation.

It wasn't showing up on the online.

Okay, I was like wondering what was going on.

Sorry about that.

I'm going to turn to my colleague, Alison Holcomb, to talk about some of the work around public safety in partnership with the Seattle Police Department.

Alison, take it away.

Thank you, John.

Thank you, John.

I have just a couple of quick notes to add to John's explanation of the community partnerships that are critical to supporting successful launches of these sites.

In addition to partnerships between the operators of the shelters and the communities in which the shelters sit, there is strong coordination and collaboration across city departments and between the city departments with those communities.

And the reason for this is that we know that the people that will be served by these shelters tend to be more vulnerable populations.

We're dealing with a population that has a higher prevalence of mental health disorders and or co-occurring substance use disorders.

And that, in turn, makes them vulnerable to what I'll refer to as predatory offenses, where you have mid-level drug dealers, drug traffickers, for example, looking to this base population as customers for most of their drug trafficking, as well as a potential labor base for criminal activities such as human trafficking and or organized retail theft, copper wire stripping, et cetera.

Seattle Police Department already enjoys a strong collaborative relationship with the Human Services Department via the Unified Care Team, which visits many of the existing encampments on a regular basis and through the Find It Fix It app and criteria for resolving encampments that become dangerous or obstructions to public access to public spaces has much experience in working with this population and actually establishing relationships with the individuals in those encampments.

What this allows them to do is to gain information about these increased risks of criminal activity that may follow individuals who are currently in these vulnerable situations and encampments, and through targeted enforcement, be able to remove those actors that are undermining the success of the shelters and of the individuals who are accessing those shelters to exit homelessness.

Thank you.

So with that, we brought representatives from HSD and SDCI to answer questions from the committee.

We are really appreciative of your time today.

And the hope and ambition of this legislation is so that we can use our public assets, our public lands, as efficiently as possible.

In our assessment, there are opportunities to grow existing programs, and we think we can do so in a responsible and thoughtful way.

and appreciate your time and questions today.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Anybody want to go first?

No.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here today and kind of picking up on our last part of the discussion.

Last time we discussed this in committee, I know I raised some questions related to staffing and want to thank the mayor's office for providing that information.

And I'm wondering if we can expand on that a little bit more for today, just highlighting.

I know the example that we have that you all highlighted in the presentation of a large site profile, which I think is helpful to understand how larger sites operate.

And I know in this example, We have 345 people served with eight case managers.

And I think what we've heard loud and clear, and I know is the intent of the administration, is to ensure that the sites that we're bringing online have high levels of supportive staffing.

And so I'm wondering if you all are thinking in terms of right now, current, for the proposal, the staffing ratios you're thinking about?

Is the administration thinking about 1 to 15 in terms of case manager ratio.

I'm just wondering if you can expand on some of your current thinking on that a little bit more.

John, do you want to take this one?

Yeah, I'm happy to do that.

It's a really important question.

So the way that we are envisioning this is that there are going to be different service models for different acuity populations.

There are some programs, like you heard some great testimony from Purpose Dignity Action today about the folks that they work with.

These are folks that may have co-occurring medical issues and mental health issues.

These are folks that may be involved in the criminal justice system and require that one to 15, one to 20 ratio.

And then there are other shelter programs where there are folks that, frankly, we live in an expensive city, it's hard to find housing and some folks, it just takes one critical incident and they can lose their housing.

and where can those folks go while they get back up on their feet and can get back into housing?

So for those folks that are not quite at that high acuity level, I think there's going to be times where there's going to be a transfer.

So like, let's say there's a person that may be having a They're living in a not high acuity program, but still has case management on site.

And that person, maybe they're, you know, I'm just throwing out an example, they go off their medication and they need assistance to get back on that medication, and it turns out they need a higher level of need.

In some cases, the way that the current program works is that that person might be exited from that shelter.

The system that we are trying to design is that these shelters operate as a portfolio, so that if somebody is kind of facing that higher acuity issue, but they're in a mismatch for their service need because there was a change in their situation, we can make a transfer, right, to a larger, not to a larger, but to a higher acuity program to get that higher level of need.

So that is the ambition and the vision that these programs can be working in concordance with each other.

But at the same time, not every single program is necessarily going to be serving the highest, highest acuity level, because that's not necessarily what every single person needs.

And I'll just add, we appreciate the amendment to the legislation passed yesterday around the high acuity work group that will be established.

And we anticipate a lot of this work will be happening in that space to get really clear on those staffing models, the portfolio, how we do the needs matching.

So we look forward to being in conversation with you and your colleagues on that.

So my chair, if I may follow up on the point.

Thank you for that.

I know we've had a lot of discussions about just the, we know that there's a lot of complexity when it comes to our, who can experience homelessness and having a focused approach on how to address those with high acuity needs is tremendously important.

So hearing from your answer that when we're looking at sites focused on higher high acuity population, we'll be focused on really defining that case management ratio, which is sounds like is really in that range of like one to 15 program participants.

would be just great to make sure we're all on the same page in terms of what are the expected case management ratios.

Because in my mind, us really ensuring that we're delivering on success and making sure for a successful launch really relies on having that staffing support for everybody involved.

And I think my follow-up question to this point is if you all can speak to also the current thinking around hiring.

I know as a As a follow up, thank you again for providing some information on the high level across all of the sites, how much staffing support will be needed, but what is the current thinking on how we can ensure that we can bring online and support the workforce to support this expansion?

John?

I'll actually turn to HSD to talk about conversations with providers.

I will say that we have held some initial meetings with providers to assess what they would need in order to grow their workforce and expand.

And that's actually part of the reason why this legislation is helpful because The amount of staffing that's required to expand an existing site is actually less, right, than having to stand up a brand new location because a lot of these locations will already have 24-7 staffing and case management in place.

And so there's kind of orders of magnitude that you can kind of address.

in terms of conversations that we've been having with providers.

I'll turn to HSD and kind of talk about what you're hearing in terms of providers that we've talked to and their sense of being able to step into these initial sites that we're standing up.

Yeah, I'll say that, you know, we're having initial conversations right now.

Obviously, the West Armory site was just announced, and we're extremely excited about that.

So very early on in the planning stages there, I think a goal of this initial set of shelters is to work with providers who feel they have the capacity right now to step into it immediately.

And those are the conversations now of, can you take this on in three or less months and really support that work?

And I think, again, to lean on the high acuity work group and the effort that will come from that kind of informing that as well.

Thank you for that.

I just want to connect the dots again between some of the conversations I know had in the committee that I chair, our Human Services Labor Economic Development Committee, recently having that discussion on wage equity and the challenges in being able to hire and retain the workforce that we all agree that we need.

And so hoping we can connect the dots on those discussions so we can really deliver on the staffing support that our neighbors, frankly, deserve in their path to stability.

So thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here again today.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Really appreciate your time and energy and all the presentation.

on this and then obviously the great panel of different people so we could just get different information.

The first thing I wanted to ask, for the first 500 shelters, could you all just walk us through who are we prioritizing for these beds and these shelters and is it high acuity folks?

What are for the first 500?

Yeah, I think the first 500 is a focus on folks who are high acuity.

And I think even within that term, there is nuance.

There are some folks that are going to require pretty significant substance use disorder counseling, and they have a co-occurring mental health issue.

We need to make sure, like not every behavioral health provider does both of those things.

Some may do one, some may do the other, some do both.

So for example, like I know that therapeutic health services actually provides both of those services and what they'll do is they'll actually hire staff that are licensed both as a mental health counselor and also as a substance use disorder counselor.

So they're kind of co-licensed in that way.

And there's gonna be some programs that will require that deeper level of behavioral health support.

And then there's some folks that may need not quite as much as that level of assistance, but maybe they would still benefit from something like a substance use disorder treatment program.

And those are folks that maybe in a matter of time can stabilize and get access to permanent supportive housing and move them as those units become available.

So I think the first 500 is that range of like chronically homeless folks.

And within that range, folks can be chronically homeless for lots of different reasons, right?

It could be a disabling condition, maybe somebody has a physical disability that prevents them from having, you know, sustained employment, and they're on SSDI, and as we all know, that is nowhere near enough to afford market rent.

Well, if they get into a shelter program, but they don't necessarily need, like, ongoing, treatment services, what they need is probably somebody to help them get their ID and get connected to a rental subsidy program to move them into housing.

So within that range of chronically homeless folks, there's going to be a different subset of what those needs are.

But I would say that for that first 500, We're looking to serve chronically homeless folks, and for the next 500, I think we're looking at a broader segment of the population, like folks who are currently stuck in shelter who may be a large family, and it's hard to find a four-bedroom apartment that they can afford.

And so I think for those types of situations, we would probably pivot to another model, like some sort of rent assistance program.

I know that's super helpful because I know I had an amendment for families and children, very passionate about that.

We tried to obviously work with our mayor's office to give a little runway to say for the first thousand shelters for that, because a lot of those families are sleeping in cars or they're at Cal Anderson in the park.

They're at different places.

They're doing couch surfing.

A lot of times we don't see them, unfortunately, and that's who, you know, I am very passionate about.

I know our colleagues are as well in wanting to get them into some type of shelter and then on to permanent supportive housing.

I'm curious to know from HSD lessons learned.

So we heard from you all are from mayor's office and providers what the government needed to do better, right?

With cutting the red tape, getting stuff online faster.

What has HSD learned about providers?

What is working well and what is not working well?

And what is gonna be different about these 500 shelters that we're putting online that is going to be better to have better outcomes?

Yeah, I think partnership is really critical.

I think what Mayor's Office has shared just about the work to kind of develop these shelters is a major issue.

I'll say looking back at the Star Center work I think recently has been super informative there.

HSD working really closely with our partners at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority and obviously DESC, but also a broader coalition as well, including SPD, CARE.

to look at what is that program achieving?

How are we achieving the goals that we laid out?

How are folks moving into the shelters as well?

When do we have to pivot?

And we meet on a monthly basis as well just to see how things are going.

And I think also outside of the program, just how are we as a program doing in the community and neighborhood and to look at issues that are coming up.

So I think, you know, that was a great success last year and launching that program quickly, and I think offers a lot of lessons learned about how to do that continuous improvement piece.

Awesome.

Understood.

And a follow-up to that, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Yes, please.

Okay, awesome.

I always want to check with the chair.

The other question I have, too, is how do we see King County Regional Homeless Authority playing into this expansion, or do they have a role?

or is it we're starting to transition some of their work plan or what we have expected them to do.

Are we transitioning that a little bit to now what we're doing at the city because those outcomes have not been what, I'll just be frank, what the public has anticipated for the money that we have been spending or giving to King County Regional Homeless Authority.

I'll let John take a first crack at this, and then I'll chime in if I need to.

Knock it out of the park.

I sent you a toss ball.

I underhand for you, John.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you so much, Council President.

You know, we have, I think, a very important partnership and relationship with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

They hold...

the majority, if not all, of the shelter contracts for the city that have moved over ever since its inception.

And I think that collaboration will continue.

We've been in conversation with them about best practices, looking at the way that they've been structuring some of their contracts for shelter providers and seeing if there's some modeling there that we want to emulate And in terms of what is the long-term view, I think that the different tasks call for different conventions.

And I think the direction that the mayor's office is pointing us towards is to quickly stand these initial shelters up as fast as possible.

And the city just has unique assets that are not available to KCRHA.

the Finance and Administrative Services Department, which has incredible expertise in real estate and negotiating leases.

We have all the strengths with SDCI around how to expedite permitting.

And so the city had some unique tools to kind of act quickly and stand these up.

And I think that is kind of not, that is seen as being in parallel to the work that we are also still doing with KCRHA and the work that they're doing to operate the existing base of shelters.

Yeah, and my final question, because there are people on Capitol Hill, when we stood up shelters very quickly, there was a, and I've talked about this often, there was a shelter that was stood up in Capitol Hill, people were taken from Burien to Capitol Hill very fast, and it was a mess.

And because we didn't have wraparound services for people, we did not have folks on site, It was quickly set up.

I was happy that we got people shelter, but we did not have the proper amount of supervision, counselors, and people to walk folks day to day through whatever issues that folks were having so we could have positive outcomes.

And so I think that's a little bit on people's mind when they hear quickly, They're like, okay, this is quickly, but what are we doing to make sure that the foundation is built properly?

That's why I always say, what is the foundation built properly?

And so working with your office, obviously that's really important to us.

District 3 has absorbed a lot of low barrier shelters and permanent supportive housing, which the Capitol Hill neighborhood is welcoming to.

but there are other neighborhoods that I know that have said, hey, well, what are the services and what is the accountability metrics being provided for in these shelters to make sure that everyone is safe, they're protected, and people have the resources they need as we're all navigating this together?

There's not been one neighborhood, well, a couple, You know, there are a lot of people that are very, very excited for these.

I'm excited for these.

There are people like, yes, we want to get people help.

But the fear that you hear from folks are like, well, hey, when we're standing this up so quickly, can we make sure that they're the positive outcomes that we want?

So anyways, so when I hear the word quickly, I'm like, yes, quickly.

And what else are we doing as well?

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to everyone for presenting today.

I'm just going to briefly share some reflections from the presentation because I know that we're running tight on time and there is another presentation that we have to get through today.

Just real quickly on staffing, I know that staffing takes time to get people into their jobs.

Do we have a consideration of, you know, part of this conversation, I guess, John, to the direct point in question here, I appreciate you saying that the focus on the first 500 will be on high needs or high acuity people.

When you were presenting and talking about that there are in fact people out here who don't need that level of services, I agree with you and I posit that we already have that level of shelter existing today.

What we're missing right now in this critical moment is that higher acuity shelter.

I say that, you know, just in my anecdotal experience across the city in District 6. I know that people who are currently living homeless in the city and in Ballard in particular have been kicked out of tiny homes because it's not the right level of service.

And so we need this next level of service.

It's not just staffing to me.

It is those de-escalation teams.

It's not just a behavioralist at the front desk.

It is that there's a team of people ready to catch that person who's falling into crisis and that we can meet their needs.

And so with that, do we have a plan for onboarding staff?

And what is the ramp up to being able to hire and train all these folks?

I'll kick us off and then pass to John and maybe HSD on that.

But I just want to respond to Council Member Strauss' comment and Council Member Hollingsworth's comment.

And I think just want to reiterate from the mayor's office that we very much share your interest, commitment, concern around making sure that these shelters are staffed appropriately, that we are striking the right balance between responding with urgency and also doing it well.

We are very well aware that every time in the future.

And so I, again, just want to reiterate our appreciation for your partnership, for your asking us the hard questions, for trying to do a hard thing together.

If it was easy, it'd be done by now.

And I think we're looking forward to continuing to partner with you throughout this implementation as we work through what we think is going to work, learn what is not quite hitting the mark and make adjustments as needed because we are very this is not a mayor's office that wants to take a ribbon and kind of claim a victory when there's not actually a real result on the ground and so we're really committed to working with you all um to to see the results and we're well aware the proof is in the pudding and we'll find out soon you know what if what we're proposing um goes the way we hope it will and i think we feel very confident with what we're proposing here and what we're working on together, we'll get the results we need.

So with that, I'll pass it to John and maybe to HSD to talk a little bit about kind of staffing and how we're doing that ramp up.

Yeah, I think it's an excellent question, Councilmember.

I will kind of turn to HSD to talk about, again, the conversations they've been having with providers, but in no scenario would we, you know, open a shelter program that we were not confident that was capable of being fully staffed and able to provide the necessary services to be successful.

It's important not just for the neighborhood, but of course for the folks that are directly impacted, which is the clients or the program participants.

I will say that for the conversations that we're having with providers, that is what we're asking them.

We're asking them what would it take to get from here to there?

What would it take to make sure that you can staff up appropriately?

And every provider is going to have a different answer.

Some providers are maybe larger than others, and they can actually shift staff around, and as they're in that process of staffing up, Some organizations might be smaller and may need additional technical assistance to get them from where they need to be to opening up the site.

And so every conversation I think is being done in an intentional way to make sure that we're finding a good match, a good fit for the service provider and their capacity to make sure that we can open up these sites successfully.

But again, I'll turn it back to HSD and talk about those conversations.

Yeah, I don't think I have a great deal more to add, but I will say as part of those conversations, I think it's talking to providers about when do we need a contract to be executed, when do you hope to onboard, what kind of flexibility, again, technical assistance can we provide to get you that contract to begin the work to be ready once the site is fully developed.

So I think that's That's really what is key and a staggering of what staff get hired and what we can do to really kind of make that a possibility for them to be ready to go and confident that they can handle those operations.

And I might add to that.

Thank you, Chairman.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

requirements.

Thank you, Chair.

I know I've already taken up five minutes, so I'm going to just ask one more question.

Just understand, I think that I have had a different experience with SDCI than the committee table, and that's, you know, just stating we had an audit of the permitting process done in 2023. I know that SDCI is working on it now, but it's three years later and we haven't had those recommendations achieved yet.

And specifically, even with the expedited permitting for shelters and housing.

It was my experience at the Salmon Bay Safe Lot that SDCI slowed the process down and actually reduced the number of RVs that we could host on that site in a temporary way.

And so my question in I'll add a charge here for the table, for the committee table, which is, and I brought this up at the last committee, Everett, the seventh largest city in the state, not the first, the seventh, they were able from the moment that their shelters arrived on a location, 48 hours later, that entire shelter site was online.

And so that is, and it might've even been before that, they might've done all the permitting in 48 hours as well.

So my challenge to you is to meet or beat Everett's record and get that shelter site in Inner Bay turned on within 48 hours of receipt of permits because it's my experience that it is different than what was conveyed.

And so that's my challenge to you is make sure that we are able to submit locate and certificate of occupancy these shelter sites within 48 hours.

Also note, and I don't need the answer now in the interest of time, it was represented by the committee table that there are continuing to be monthly meetings with the tiny home villages.

I can say that the two that are closest here in District 6, the two tiny home villages, I don't experience issues with them.

their neighbors know how to get in touch with me, and I know how to get in touch with the executive directors.

And so we've been able to resolve any issues that arise.

But I'm not aware of any monthly meetings.

So if we as the city are going to represent that that is something that is going to occur, I'd like a better understanding of when and how those occur.

But I'll turn it over to the committee table for any responses to the 48-hour challenge.

And we can follow up later about the monthly meetings.

I appreciate the challenge, Councilmember.

I'd definitely be interested in reaching out to Everett to see what they're doing, how they're achieving that.

It's very impressive.

I believe right now we're doing five to 10 business day permitting turnaround.

for these projects, extensive coaching ahead of time.

And we've recently adjusted our process to do more pre-submittal coaching with all of the various other permitting departments as well to try to get these applications complete and where they need to be and address any feasibility issues up front to really expedite the process.

So definitely trying a bunch of things.

to continue to improve.

Thank you.

So it sounds like challenge accepted?

Challenge accepted.

Let's beat Everett.

Let's beat Everett.

Thank you.

Vice Chair, Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair and colleagues.

I'm just going to let you know in advance I have about six questions.

So maybe seven.

We'll see.

And thank you so much, presenters.

I really appreciate your time.

I want to start first with, you know, I know recently the mayor's announced one of the sites for the shelter expansion.

And I'd love to hear more specifically whether or not you've been able to identify a location for the 250-unit pilot site.

I'll let John take that question.

Hi, Councilmember.

No, we have not.

We have not located a specific location.

I think the thinking here is that it would be premature to identify a location until this legislation passes.

And I would say that, you know, of the different options that are out there, we did give an example at the last committee meeting for Camp Second Chance just to kind of illustrate like what that might look like.

I think that folks It was kind of hard to picture maybe like what type of program would be a good fit.

And, you know, there are some sites out there that have a pretty significant amount of like public land around them that could be utilized, but we have not like decided, you know, what particular location we might want to move forward with.

I think we would want to have a lot more intentional conversations with each council member about sites in their districts before we would move forward.

Okay, thank you.

This question actually doesn't need a response.

It just needs a response later.

So I just wanted to follow up on the question that came from Council President Hollingsworth earlier in terms of lessons learned.

And I want to request specifically that I know that we have the IDT that's going to come up now, thanks to the legislation that was passed yesterday.

I want to request specifically that HSD brings into that conversation a more thorough response to those lessons learned.

I think you gave us a good overview today.

But as we've been engaging with providers, we've heard a number of things, including the staff ratio as one option.

We've heard questions around requiring case management as one option.

So I do want to get a more detailed response when we go into that IDT so we can consider those and make sure that we have the high acuity workgroup working well off the bat.

So thank you for that.

And then I want to turn to slide 10, if we can, in the presentation, please.

which I believe is Director Holcomb, Executive Director Holcomb's slides when we're looking at some of the safety considerations.

Yep, there we go.

I really appreciate this overview and update that you gave and I wanna just get a little bit more detailed responses In particular, I know that we heard a couple weeks ago when folks were at the table around this sort of development of specific strategies.

And I'd love to hear more about where we are in that process.

What can you tell us about what active development means and when we're going to get some more of those details?

Sure.

What I can share with you is that what is in development is that each precinct, the captains and patrol officers and detectives working with those geographic regions are developing as one piece of the strategy undercover operations, for example, are monitoring locations to observe suspected, these mid-level drug dealers, as I've been calling them, who travel to sites engage in commercial transactions, leave the sites.

Some of this information comes in from neighbors who observe, who take pictures with their own cell phones.

Some of the information comes from being on site when officers are accompanying UCT site visits.

And so that piece, I don't know that there will be a lot more detail that we'll be publishing about what an undercover operation might look like as it's being put together.

but that is probably the primary tool that we have right now.

and I will offer again what I think I offered in the last hearing where we talked about this is that Seattle Police Department is quite willing to meet with council members individually to identify specific sites within districts, for example, that may be concerns or where you're hearing more from constituents about what appears to be visible criminal activity associated with a particular location.

Please feel free to ask me follow-up questions if I'm not getting what you need.

You know I will.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

And actually, I'll say this before I get into the follow-ups, because I said it around the table earlier this week.

I think it's important that we ask these questions around safety.

And I know that we all hear questions from community members around them.

We hear questions around them from folks who are living in the tiny home villages, as well as neighbors.

And asking those questions does not mean that tiny home villages are inherently dangerous.

And so I just want to state that plainly and clearly.

I have three that I can walk to from my house.

And I know that myself and my neighbors welcome them as part of our community.

And with that, I'll go into my follow-up questions.

So if you can share more.

Really, this slide, I think, was helpful.

But I wanted to get into some of the details here.

So there's this piece here around targeting dangerous and illegal activities.

And I know you just mentioned undercover operations, so it may be that you can't provide more detail.

But I'm curious if there's a particular focus as you're sort of developing this.

You mentioned the drug dealing and the sort of attempts to take advantage of folks in those communities.

Are there other kinds of activities that are coming to mind and coming into focus here?

The three categories of criminal activity that appear to be more prevalent in concerns about encampments really deal with the vulnerability of the populations there.

So in addition to people who are taking advantage of the fact that some people are suffering from substance use disorders in these encampments, We also have concerns about human trafficking.

And finally, the organized retail theft and or just basic metal scrapping, right?

Stealing copper wires from commercial sites, construction sites, et cetera, and setting up shop in RVs that are parked close to encampments.

There will be an RV or a specific tent that's not too far away from an encampment where you have really a concentration of illicit commercial activity occurring out of that specific location.

And to your point, it's one or two people that are responsible for a lot of this activity that is of concern to community.

Thank you.

And then I'm going to keep asking questions.

I'm going to turn to some questions that my council member, my council member, my colleague, Council Member Juarez, passed on since she couldn't attend today.

So I want to ask those for her.

So can you just share more about how the vicinity of shelter programs is defined?

I think that's some language that's on the slide.

We don't have specific measurements at this time.

What I can share just anecdotally is, for example, when I went on a field trip with UCT to some sites, there was one tent that was alleged to be a location of a person engaging in drug dealing that was roughly two blocks from one of the multiple encampments that were spread across the Ballard neighborhood, which is where we were visiting.

Some may be actually within the encampment itself, right?

You might have one tent in the middle of encampment.

There was another location where that appeared to be what was happening at that activity.

At a third location that we visited, an RV was pointed out to me that was known or at least there was information suggesting that the individuals that lived in that RV or resided in that RV, excuse me, I will say as a point of clarification, may not actually be living in that RV, but may be living in a home or an apartment close by and using that RV as a location for their site.

Generally, I would say within walking distance of individuals that are not likely to walk very far from their encampment to be able to access illicit substances, for example.

So don't have specific measurements and appreciate that that is something that has been discussed in amendments to the legislation.

And it may be useful for us to have ongoing conversations about what the data can show us as we start to have more of these investigative operations completed.

Thank you.

And then my final question, and it's still sort of in the public safety realm, but maybe a different approach.

I know that some of the providers have partnered with other organizations who then help with making sure that the folks who are there are safe.

So I know some of the providers have a contract with We Deliver Care, for example.

and that focuses on making sure that there's folks who are in the encampment who are served and they've got their access to treatment, they've got their access to case management, and then there's sort of a way to make sure that those folks are also safe coming and going.

Is that also part of the current conversation as we're thinking about the approach to public safety?

I know you've given us sort of the SPD component today, and I'm curious where that sort of collaborative or integrative model might fit into the approach.

What I will say is that we've really appreciated that council has engaged us in providing more information about the alternative response teams that city departments have.

I might need to kick back to my colleague John to see if there have been specific conversations about that.

What I can say from my engagement with Seattle Police Department and CARE is that absolutely across all of the work that's related to shelters and encampments.

The goal is to have people available because we know that relationship is the key to success.

If I may add to that, To answer your question, Councilmember, yes, we've been in conversation with a few providers that do provide those types of de-escalation services.

And one of the questions that we have asked, we have brought together some providers to get feedback and input on this larger effort.

And one of the questions we asked was, what works best?

Does it make sense to have a citywide team of folks that are trained in de-escalation that can kind of be like a...

an added asset to what you need at a particular location that can be kind of like a mobile unit that travels around to different locations and provides those services there?

Or alternatively, does it make sense to have that be in-house with that provider providing those services directly with the people that they have working within their existing organization?

And a good example of that is like the DESC Star Center.

Like those are DESC staff out in the front of the building trying to deescalate situations in the street and address street disorder right in the vicinity, right?

So that would be the other way to approach it.

And the short answer to it is that we hear yes, yes and, right?

Like both of those strategies can work.

And I think it's gonna depend on the provider.

Thank you so much for that.

And thank you, Chair.

I'll just say really briefly, as I conclude, I'm so proud to get to sponsor this legislation and in part because I want to make sure that we are working to do this.

And we've said this, I've said this before, that we're doing it and we're doing it well and making sure that what for me well means that it works for the folks that are in the community.

And I think we want to give the level of attention and detail there, as well as this component around making sure that we are managing and collaborating with neighborhoods so that we can continue to scale up because we so desperately need to.

So I appreciate the candor and the responses to those questions.

And I know that we'll get into those details more in the IDT.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Thank you, colleagues.

We are running a little bit on short on time.

I'm hoping that we can go past 1130. We do have an additional presentation from Council Central staff.

I'm hoping that that one can be pretty brief because I think most of our questions have been targeted towards the mayor's office and we've had a lot.

I'm just gonna, I don't have any questions.

I'm gonna say a few comments and then we'll move on to the next presentation and then we'll follow up with the housing opportunities legislation.

Really, really appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this.

I really appreciate the mayor's office really being willing to take ownership of this issue.

I think for too long, We have not we've externalized this onto our providers.

We've sort of pointed it, you know, council versus mayor versus some other agency.

And to me, we need to be taking a proactive role in citing and permitting in our public safety response.

And so I really, really appreciate that.

I think we all I agree that we need robust services.

And I think it's important to recognize that our unhoused population is diverse, just like our housed population.

There's not a one size fits all.

And we also recognize that our unhoused population is more likely to to have mental health, to have substance use disorder and other higher needs.

And I really appreciate the slide 10 about the vulnerable, how vulnerable this population is.

And I think that that's really important to recognize that this is a vulnerable population that is oftentimes exploited and taken advantage of.

And I think that that's, for me, why it's so critical that we have services and security, and that we have tiny home villages because I think our most vulnerable folks are the ones that are in unsanctioned encampments.

where we don't have an ability to provide services and security.

And so I do think it's so critical that we be cautious about unsanctioned encampments near our sanctioned ones because of those public safety concerns, also because I don't want folks, we have a lot of different providers and different demographics that we serve, but I think there's a concern that when there's an unsanctioned encampment near a sanctioned one that it can to cause sort of an unsafe environment.

It also can conflate the two within the public's mind that somehow if issues are really popping up that it relates to the sanctioned one.

And so I want to be very mindful of that.

I also just really appreciate the frank conversation about some of the public safety needs.

I'm not sure that I recall us having such a frank and honest conversation about that.

And I think that's really necessary for our community and for us to solve this problem.

So I appreciate that.

And finally, I just want to say that I think you see a strong partnership coming from Council, and not only in sort of the permitting, but also in the budget, at least in my mind.

We are going to need to find significant amounts of resources.

And so at least speaking for myself, I want to do everything I can to partner with you all on finding those resources.

Thank you.

Move on to council central staff for hopefully.

In the interest of time, I don't know that we necessarily need to go into the presentation that we prepared today.

A little bit out of sequence.

The presentation reminds the council and those folks who may be watching about actions that took place yesterday at full council where two bills were passed, one and authorizing the FAS director to enter into leases for larger sites that could serve as transitional encampments.

And the other, the budget bill, which came with many statements of legislative intent, many of which were talked about today, a lot of those having to do with operational safety and community expectations.

As Councilmember Lynn just mentioned, there are some reporting requirements that go along with the budget bill that will help inform council decision-making about ongoing appropriations for the encampments as they are set up.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

Were any of you, any other thoughts or comments did we need to have the central staff presentation?

Are we okay?

We're good?

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Foster, do you wanna close us out on anything else on next steps?

You mentioned it earlier, but just on the dates again.

Yes, I have to pull up the dates in front of me because I cannot remember off the top of my head.

Okay, there we go.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I really appreciate it.

And again, thank you to the mayor's office team, to HSD, to SDCI, to central staff, to my colleagues, and to anyone from the public who stayed tuned in for this long.

As a reminder, amendments are due on the 22nd, which is a week from today.

We will have those up for discussion on the 29th and be voted out of committee on the 6th.

And I'll just close by saying again, I'm so proud to sponsor this legislation and again, so grateful to see such intense early action coming from this mayor's office.

I opened up saying, you know, comments around it's right that we are treating this like the emergency that we are.

So thank you for working hard to send this legislation down to us early.

And thank you for your ongoing engagement as we have dug into the details of this over the last several weeks.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

All right.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Okay.

Moving on.

We will now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two?

Agenda item two.

Council Bill 121-196, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, rezoning certain land in the University District, the Fremont neighborhood, the Madison slash Miller neighborhood, the Rainier Beach neighborhood, and the downtown neighborhood.

Rezoning land and amending development standards to increase housing supply support, multipurpose redevelopment on certain sites with community-based uses, remove code barriers to passive house modular and mass construction and conversion from commercial space to housing and more zones and incentives.

and incentivize community serving uses along with the construction of more housing in certain areas.

Thank you.

And colleagues, I know it is already 1118. I'm hoping maybe we could go till noon if that's not too late.

Wonderful.

There is a fair amount to go over.

This is just an initial briefing.

We'll have time to continue to ask questions and to work offline, but I just want to make sure that we have the time to go through this pretty extensive initial briefing.

And whenever you're ready, please go ahead and introduce yourself.

Good morning, council members.

My name's Jeff Wendland.

I'm the land use policy and strategic initiatives manager at the city's Office of Planning and Community Development.

And thank you for taking the time to review the housing opportunities legislation proposal this morning.

I will give a brief overview and just want to note at the top that what you're going to see today is an expression of Mayor Wilson's values and specifically one that she's communicated about providing affordable, abundant housing and thriving neighborhoods.

So an all of the above type housing strategy is very important to this mayor and a continuum of housing opportunities at every income level.

So the purpose of this legislation is to make some focused changes to the city's land use code and zoning that can support near term investment in additional housing supply.

And these changes are focused on housing production on opportunity sites and in areas that are well served or well positioned for new housing development without causing displacement pressure.

And these changes can be advanced now, even while we're working in parallel on more holistic changes to implement the new comp plan.

And that last point also is consistent with one of the values that Mayor Wilson has expressed to our office around being an inclusive and accountable government.

So if we can do something soon, make a supportive change for housing now, she wants us to move things fast, quickly.

So this legislation has seven components.

It's a bundle of things.

I'll give a quick overview of each of those.

So the list here is some of these are zoning changes on the map.

Others are changes to the land use code.

So there's a rezone in the Fremont-Stoneway area.

There's a rezone in the downtown retail core area.

There are a few rezones on community-owned sites, like YMCA sites, for example, and I'll talk about that.

There's a code change that would remove barriers to passive house, modular, and mass timber construction, and this would implement direction from the state in House Bill 1183 early.

This proposal would also increase height limits to encourage more housing in Belltown, where our planning has suggested that as a neighborhood that's ready for more housing.

We would also remove code barriers to conversion from commercial to housing in more zones.

And this package includes an incentive for a new grocery store in Lake City, should there be development there.

So that's the list.

I'm going to just give a quick overview of each of those items for you.

So the first one here is the Rezone in the Fremont-Stoneway area.

It's at the base of Stoneway, and it's centered around the campus-like environment where there is the Brooks Sports Headquarters and the Evo Company.

And there are about 1,000 or so employees in a range of well-paying jobs and folks in this area want to add housing near those employers.

This would be very similar to the zones that are just north of this area along Stone Way with a similar height limit and density to that.

And we've discussed with partners at the port and other stakeholders.

This area is not within the Manufacturing and Industrial Center.

It's within the Fremont Urban Village, and there are no concerns there.

Moving forward, the next proposal for a rezone is in the downtown retail core area.

This is along Union Street, near 4th Avenue.

This extends a rezone that the council did in 2023, and it is a change from the downtown retail core zone that has a height limit of a maximum of 170 to the downtown mixed commercial zone that has a height limit maximum of 440 feet.

It would do two things simultaneously.

On redevelopment sites, like the site of a vacant former Chase Bank, it could allow a new tower-like housing development.

So infill where it is appropriate.

Simultaneously, it would incentivize conversion of historic age structures from commercial space to housing.

So there are a couple of those types of buildings in this area.

That works because the developer has more transfer of development rights that they can sell to help offset the cost of the conversion.

So to do things at once.

The next rezone is in the Rainier Beach area.

This is very close to the Rainier Beach light rail station.

It would change the hatched area from...

to the Seattle-mixed Rainier Beach 55-foot height limit zone up to a 125-foot zone.

The vacant part of that site that you see in the image is owned by Mount Baker Housing and is being looked at for an affordable housing development.

This would allow that development to really maximize the number of housing units that could be in it.

and this is within walking distance of the light rail station, so it's a good location.

The next opportunity site here is in the U District.

This is on the site of the University Family YMCA and some adjacent properties.

You're going to see a few sites like this.

Last year, the council did something really cool, which was to encourage redevelopment of the Lake City Community Center site with housing above.

So you can have a community center type facility with floors of housing above that.

And we're looking at that in a few different places, including this one.

So the YMCA is an aging facility.

It may need to be upgraded or replaced soon.

And they approached the city and said, hey, can we look at redevelopment of our site with a whole bunch of housing above?

And this would encourage that.

It would increase this zoning from a mid-rise type zone to a tower type zone at 240 feet of height, similar to other towers that have recently been built in the U District.

The next rezone area is similar to the last one, but it's in the Madison Miller neighborhood.

It also includes the Meredith Matthews East Madison YMCA site.

So a similar story here, but the rezone would be from a low rise two zone to a neighborhood commercial zone with a 75 foot height limit.

That would be similar to zoning in the vicinity, and it would allow that YMCA to develop with a mixed use building, should they choose to do so.

The next rezone proposal is in the Belltown neighborhood.

And through downtown neighborhood planning, it came to our attention that this is a great place for adding more housing.

The city and its partners are making a lot of investments in public spaces in this area.

And the zoning has not changed in Belltown for a very long time, so it's much lower than other parts of downtown.

This proposal would be a limited time opportunity until we can make permanent zoning changes in Greater Downtown.

It would allow an additional 50 feet of height in 95-foot zones, an additional 100 feet of height in 145-foot zones to encourage infill housing on sites that could be ready to build.

And so there are some vacant properties that are ready to go there that could be helped by this.

The next item is removing barriers to passive house modular and mass timber construction.

This implements state legislation, and so if a project is one of those bulleted items, including built of mass timber, I'll just focus on that one.

there would be a waiver of upper level facade modulation and upper level setback requirements.

So when you build with mass timber, it's much more expensive to do those little jigs and jogs.

So this would allow for mass timber to kind of build in a rectilinear form and support that construction method.

The next item focuses in Lake City, and this would be an incentive that on a very large site like the former Fred Meyer site, if the new building includes any combination of grocery store, pharmacy, medical services, et cetera, it could have a height limit increase from 55 feet to 85 feet, and including at least 200 units would also be a a prerequisite for that incentive.

So it's basically saying if that site or similar sites are going to redevelop in Lake City, wouldn't it be great if we could have a new grocery store in it?

Just a few images to close us out here.

OPCD is very excited about mass timber construction, and some of the changes in this package would support this type of building.

This is a proposal for a site that's in early permitting in Seattle.

It has 12 stories of mass timber over a concrete and steel base.

other changes to the construction codes are facilitating this type of building.

And we're excited about the future that we could see more kind of intermediate scale towers that are very livable with big windows and can produce a lot of housing.

So the changes you have before you could encourage more mass timber type construction in the future.

This is an image in Belltown where the zoning today generally limits buildings to a mid-rise type scale, and this would allow a tower type scale on more sites.

You can see that some of the older buildings in the same neighborhood are towers, and there are towers close to this area, so we believe there could be compatibility.

And I just wanna note that this proposal does not include the bonus on landmark sites, so landmark sites would continue to be protected.

And then the last image, this is another exciting opportunity.

This is the base of Stone Way.

And the building that is noted here is a proposed infill housing and hotel that would be added basically to the campus-like setting near the Brooks and Evo headquarters.

housing is not currently allowed in that zone, this proposal would allow housing to be built there.

And I'll just finish out by saying that we think this is a kind of a common sense package of focus changes that can support housing.

OPCD is pleased to bring this forward under Mayor Wilson's direction.

We think we could do this again in the future.

You know, periodically if there's a chance to kind of round up some common sense supports for housing, we'd like to look at housing opportunities packages again in the future.

So thank you very much.

I know we don't have a lot of time.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

now or offline.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Chair.

For the public, thank you for the presentation.

I had it and, you know, was really interested.

And I think for the public, could you talk about and walk us through why those properties were selected, like how it was determined that those were the properties that were being selected to be changing with zoning?

Yeah, thank you.

Basically, these are opportunities that OPCD became aware of by people out in the public bringing them to us.

So the name is telling here.

We believe these are opportunities where property owners or builders or community partners came forward saying, hey, if the city made some changes, we could move a project forward in the relatively near term.

So that's basically how we identified these is from proposals coming from outside the city.

Awesome, thank you.

Thank you, Chair, that was it.

Okay, thank you.

And let's see, moving on to, I lost my screen here.

Council Member Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for the fantastic presentation.

We're really excited to hear from you.

I wanted to turn just quickly to the Lake City grocery store incentivization.

I know earlier this week there was a decision coming from the hearing examiner regarding a potential other grocery store that could have been cited in the community.

It's my understanding, and mostly just, again, sort of asking to get it to public, This incentivization that's covered here sort of allows and provides additional bonuses if there's a grocery store that also provides housing, but it does not address what was the recent sort of decision that came through.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

It's unrelated to that issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, we know the challenges in our economy have hit housing development particularly hard.

We hear this not only anecdotally, but it's also showing up in our city's data.

The steep drop-offs in permits, as reported from SDCI.

We know from our union partners, we have over a thousand unemployed electricians who are ready to work.

And we know we're in a housing shortage with a real need to have more affordable housing options across our entire city so the folks who build this city and make it run can afford to live here.

So I was very excited to have this bill come before us today.

These targeted up zones and bonuses for environmentally friendly projects are exactly what we need to kickstart projects that we know are ready to get going.

And so I just have a couple of questions for today, and I want to keep it brief.

My first question is related to modular construction.

This currently is written.

It seems to be written in a way that could be interpreted pretty broadly.

It says, standardized components produced off-site, which are transported and assembled at a final location.

So what guardrails are we thinking about right now to have in place to make sure that it's not applied to pretty much every construction project in the city?

And we're really meeting our policy goals here.

Thank you, Councilmember Ring, for the question.

We're open to continuing to improve this legislation and add in whatever guardrails are necessary, so I just want to say that.

But one thing that's helpful here is that the state of Washington has a program for modular construction, where proposed modular buildings have to be certified by the Department of Labor Industries, kind of inspect it off-site.

So like anything that's modular has to go through that.

We think that would help protect against unintended consequences where we would say only buildings that are going through the state's modular program would be eligible.

So that could be something done by interpretation or if it needs to be amended into this proposal, welcome that.

Understood.

Thank you for that.

We'd love to continue the conversation there.

And on the Passive House definition, it's my understanding we're currently linking our code to a definition provided by FIAS or the Passive House Institute.

Can you speak a little bit more to that current definition?

And have we seen Passive House definitions change over the years?

I'm just thinking about whether there's potential benefit for developing our own definition or tying it to this one.

And can you explain some of the rationale there?

Yeah, I admit I am not an expert on the Passive House topic.

We took the language more or less exactly in this city bill from what was in the state, HB 1183. I saw the question from council staff suggesting we might need to be clearer about what counts as a Passive House certification, and we'd welcome a clarifying amendment there.

So that's my short answer.

We borrow the state's definition, and there's probably room for improvement.

That's great to understand.

And I know, as a follow-up question to that, I know FIAS has also different levels of certification, and so are we...

thinking about linking this bonus to the lowest level of certification, or are there differences based on level of certification that we want to consider?

I think we erred on the side of if it's certified, it would be OK for this bonus.

The Passive House standard is a very high environmental performance standard, so we felt that as long as it was one of the tiers of certification, that would be sufficient.

Thank you for that clarification.

And certainly would like to continue the conversation to find ways to potentially clarify to make sure we're making really come bringing into fruition some of the broader policy goals I think we all share when it comes to this legislation.

I hope we can move this forward quickly, get these exciting projects going forward.

And on a final note, Chair, I'd like to request my name to be added as a bill co-sponsor.

Thank you, Councilmember Rank.

Colleagues, any other?

I had one more.

I'm sorry.

Please, please go ahead.

Really quick, I know this legislation, previous administration, it was in the middle, it was in between council and the previous mayor, and then were there changes made by this administration to this legislation before it was sent, transmitted to council?

I'm not aware of major changes.

I think we were improving the code drafting, but there weren't major substantive changes.

We definitely discussed it extensively with new leadership and they wanted to move it forward.

Awesome.

All right.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council President, colleagues.

And yeah, that was one point I just wanted to sort of highlight was that this has been in the works for a long time.

My understanding is you published two SEPA determinations and have engaged with the public, sought feedback, and I really appreciate this administration moving it forward.

Happy to sponsor, happy to have colleagues co-sponsor.

But I do just want to note for the record that this has been in the works for a while.

And I appreciate OPCD's leadership in bringing this package forward.

If you have anything else you want to round us out with, we'd love to hear any final thoughts.

But otherwise, thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

And OPCD looks forward to continuing to work with you council members to refine and improve as needed.

So thank you.

Councilmember Foster, did you still have a...

I see a hand.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

I think that we've reached the end of today's agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Okay, hearing no further business, come before the committee.

We are adjourned at 1140. Thank you.