>>> CHECKING ON YOUR FEED BEFORE WE BEGIN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, AWARD- WINNING SEATTLE CHANNEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. IT IS APRIL 16, 2025. MEETING THE SELECT MEETING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAD COME TO ORDER. IT IS 2:02 P.M. I AM JOY HOLLINGSWORTH, YOUR FAVORITE COUNCILMEMBER, CHAIR OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE. I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE THAT. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. >> HERE AND I DO AGREE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> PRESENT AND AGREE. >> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. >> PRESENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER -- >> HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. >> HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON. >> HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH. >> THANK YOU. OKAY. WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE AGENDA -- EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ARE EXCUSED. WE WILL CONSIDER THE AGENDA IF NO OBJECTIONS THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING NONE, IT IS ADOPTED. WITH THAT WE WILL OPEN THE HYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. PUBLIC KMONTS SHOULD BE RELATED TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA IN THE PURVIEW OF THAT COMMITTEE. CLERK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP? >> 15 IN PERSON AND EIGHT REMOTE. >> AWESOME. EVERYONE WILL GET ONE MINUTE TODAY SO WE CAN JUMP INTO OUR -- MR. TSIMERMAN, NOT TODAY, PLEASE DO NOT BE DISRUPTIVE. EVERYONE WILL GET ONE MINUTE. WE ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE PEOPLE 20 MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE CONTINUE TO EXTEND IT SO WE CAN GET THROUGH OUR INTERIM LEGISLATION AND HAVE PEOPLE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL DO ONE MINUTE TODAY. CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE -- NOW I LOST MY PLACE. THE INSTRUCTIONS. >> THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE MODERATED, I WILL CALL SPEAKERS BY NAME IN THE ORDER THEY REGISTERED AND FROM THE SIGN UP SHEET IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. WE START WITH IN PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST. IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED TO SPEAK, YOU CAN SIGN UP BEFORE THE END OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. GO TO THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE OR BY SIGNING UP ON THE SIGN-UP SHEETS NEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS MICROPHONE. THE ONLINE LINK IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. BEGIN BY SITTING YOUR NAME AND ITEM YOU ARE ADDRESSING. SPEAKERS HEAR A CHIME WHEN TEN SECONDS ARE LEFT. IF SPEAKERS DO NOT END AT THE END OF THE ALLOTTED TIME, THE MICROPHONES WILL BE MUTED TO ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT PERSON. >> AWESOME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I WILL CALL PEOPLE UP IN THREE. WE HAVE MORGAN ROBINSON, WE HAVE RUTH AND WE HAVE LARANT. IF I SAID THAT CORRECTLY, I APOLOGIZE IF I MESS UP YOUR NAME. MORGAN, RUTH, AND LARANT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THE INTERIM LEGISLATION THROUGH RATHER QUICKLY TO MOVE ON TO THE PHASE ONE LEGISLATION AND NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION. I THINK THERE IS A REAL RISK WITH THE INTERIM LEGISLATION AS IT STANDS. SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO STEEP SLOPES, THE CURRENT FORMULATION AROUND ECAs WILL ALLOW FOR CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT IN STEEP SLOPE ECAs OF THE VARIOUS KINDS. THE PROBLEM IF YOU TAKE AWAY THREE MONTHS LATER YOU WILL HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO SAY, HEY, YOU LET ME DO THIS AND NOW YOU ARE TAKING AWAY AND SUBJECT TO LAWSUITS AND THINGS. I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT WE PROPOSED THAT WOULD BLOCK STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT IN ECAs BEFORE YOU ADOPT THE INTERIM LEGISLATION BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU HAVE OPENED THE GATE AND TRY TO CORRAL IT BACK IN. SO GOOD LUCK GETTING THINGS THROUGH QUICKLY ON INTERIM LEGISLATION. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT NAEMT BEFORE THE NEXT PHASE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MORGAN. NEXT, WE HAVE RUTH AND THEN LARANT. >> I AM RUTH -- [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> IF YOU COULD USE THE MICROPHONE. >> RUTH -- REPRESENTING FRIENDS OF QUEEN ANNE, FORMER LANDSCAPER ARCHITECT COMP PLANS AND GUIDELINES. INSUFFICIENT -- >> ONE SECOND. COULD WE RESTART THE TIME? IF YOU COULD SPEAK IN THE MIC. YOU HAVE TO PULL IT TO YOU. >> OKAY. RUTH REPRESENTING FRIENDS OF QUEEN ANNE, RETIRED LAND USE PLANNER ARCHITECT WRITTEN BUSINESSES GUIDELINES. WE ARE CONCERNED YOU HAVE INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS. I AM HOW INADEQUATE IT IS ON UPPER QUEEN ANNE WHICH IS GOING TO BE NEARLY 1,000 LOTS UP TO NR. AND 400% EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS DISTRICT YET THE EIS FINDS IN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. 330 UNITS DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY, NOBODY UNDERSTANDS IT, PLANNING STAFF WON'T EXPLAIN IT. THIS IS IMPORTANT INNOVATION. THEY SHOULD KNOW WE SHOULD HAVE AND UNDERSTAND AFTER MONTHS OF READING I UNDERSTAND IT. PLEASE ASK STAFF TO EXPLAIN IN CLEAR TERMS HOW THE ZONING WAS DONE, INCLUDING ANY STANDARD MEASURE TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS ZONING NEEDED BEYOND THAT GROWTH. I CAN HELP YOU UNDERSTAND IT. IF YOU DON'T -- THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, RUTH. WE HAVE LAURENT AND DON SILLER AND ALSO SUSAN FEDERER. I APOLOGIZE IF I MESS UP YOUR LAST NAME. >> LAWYER AUNT BERMAN, DISTRICT 7. THANK YOU FOR HEARING US OUT TODAY. REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I WILL BE BRIEF. FIRST I WANTED TO REITERATE THE CONCERNS RAISED IN PRIOR COMMENT AROUND STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE CREATES AMBIGUITY THAT CREATES POTENTIALLY PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED INTERIM LANGUAGE AROUND SETBACKS AND WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO TREES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE LIVE IN. GENERALLY CONCERNS ABOUT THE NORTHWEST STUDY THAT WAS PUBLISHED ECONORTHWEST BORDERING ON MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION AROUND THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT NEED TO BE DEVELOPED, NUMBER OF HOMES THAT IT WOULD REPRESENT USING A SUPPLY RATHER THAN DEMAND NUMBERS. SO I WOULD PUSH US TO REALLY NOT CAUSE THE INTERIM LEGISLATION TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR HB 1110 AND GIVE US THE TIME AS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD AND COMMUNICATE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT WE HAVE DON AND THEN SUSAN, FOLLOWED BY NOT ALEX TSIMERMAN BUT ANOTHER ALEX. I CAN'T READ THE LAST NAME. >> MY NAME IS TSIMERMAN. >> I'M DAWN SYLER, LIVE ON QUEEN ANNE I WILL HL. BY FRIENDS SCRAPED ENOUGH MONEY TOGETHER TO BUY A HOME IN BALLARD. IT WAS THEIR LARGEST INVESTMENT. HOPING THAT THEY WOULD CASH IN FOR RETIREMENT THEY RAISED THEIR FAMILY, COACHED LITTLE LEAGUE, PARTICIPATED IN PTA, MARRIED SHARED IN MARRIAGES IN -- WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. THEY REMODELLED THEIR HOUSE AND WATCHED THE VALUE GROW AND THEY WERE PROUD OF THEIR HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THEN A FUNNY THING HAPPENED. THE CITY UP ZONED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD STACK FLATS FOURPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES. THERE WAS NEVER ENOUGH PARKING SPACE, THE GREENERY BECAME CONCRETE AND THE RENTERS WERE NO LONGER NEIGHBORS. THEY WATCHED THE VALUE OF THEIR HOME ERODE. OPCD WANT TO APPLY THAT SAME STANDARD TO QUEEN ANNE HILL. PLEASE DO NOT BALLARDIZE QUEEN ANNE HILL -- [ INAUDIBLE ] . WILL BE MAINTAINED. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT WE HAVE SUSAN -- WAS THAT SUSAN? YEAH. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM SUSAN, I GREW AND LIVE IN WEST SEATTLE WAY OF BALLARD. PERTAINING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE HARMFUL IMPACTS OF -- LEFT OF OUR URBAN FOREST CANOPY RELYING ON PARKS AND PARKING STRIPS STUNT ALLOW THE CITY TO REACH A GOAL OF 30%. HALF OF THE EXISTS TREES ARE EXPERIENCING CLIMB CONDITIONS. LESS ESTABLISHED ROOT SYSTEMS SUSCEPTIBLE TO EXTREME HEAT EVENTS. IT CONCERNS ME THEY ARE APPROVING PERMITS FOR THE REMOVAL OF MORE THAN 350 DEGREES PER MONTH MORE THAN 4,000 PER YEAR WHICH MEANS THE AIR QUALITY IS DEGRADED, HEALTH OF PUGET SOUND IS SUFFERING. ALL THOSE PRO LAWSUITENTS HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. AN EXAMPLE IS A GIANT HE IS KWOI TO ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK -- KNOWN FOR ABILITY TO HANDLE DROUGHT AND PESTS. RELEASED BACK INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AT 60,000 POUNDS. IRONICALLY SO THEY CAN INSTALL A DRIVEWAY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY -- >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE MR. ALEX TSIMERMAN FOLLOWED BY DAVID -- >> THANK YOU. >> HI. YEAH. DIRTY NAZI FASCIST, I'M ALEX TSIMERMAN. I SUPPORT -- A MAGA MEMBER. I HAVE 6,000 DAY OF TRESPASS -- YOU EXECUTE ME FIVE TIMES. I AM STOOP ADD MAN AND MY ENGLISH NOT ENOUGH. WHAT SELECTION? SELECTION COMMITTEE. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IN ENGLISH IT IS MAYBE IN GERMAN AS I SPEAK RUSSIAN OR -- SELECT MEANS WHEN YOU HAVE 20, YOU SUPPOSED TO BE CHOICE, FINE. BUT YOU NOT SELECT. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >> WHY? BECAUSE MY PRESIDENT TRUMP TALK ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU DIRTY CROOKS REQUEST YOU DOING THIS BECAUSE THE 700,000 IDIOT -- WHAT IS THEY TALKING? YEAH. NOT CARE ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW THIS. SO TRUMP, AMERICAN REVOLUTION, FREAKING -- >> THANK YOU. AND FOR THE RECORD, MR. TSIMERMAN, ALL I ASK IS JUST RESPECT. WHILE WE ARE TALKING, JUST NO OUTBURSTS. THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU JUST DO ME THAT FAVOR AND SHOW ME THE SAME AMOUNT OF RESPECT I SHOW YOU EVERY TIME YOU SHOW UP TO COUNCIL, OKAY? MR. DAVID GLOGER, WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM A RESIDENT OF SEATTLE. AS I IMAGINE MOST ARE AWARE, SIX COMPLAINTS WERE FILED AGAINST THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN. NOW THESE COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE ISSUES. ONE OF THESE COMPLAINTS NOTED THAT THE EIS ASSUMEDASSUMED THERE WOULD BE 100,000 NEW HOUSING UNIFORMS /- UNITS BUILD UNDER THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN. HOW CAN WE KNOW THE IMPACT TO SEATTLE IF WE BUILD THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF HOWSON UNITS AS STUDIED IN THE EIS? THERE IS OTHER ISSUES LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION IN THE EIS ABOUT THE KILLER WHALES AND THERE WERE FOUR OTHER COMPLAINTS DISMISSED OVER CAL TEASE. THE CITY'S ATTORNEYS WERE ABLE TO GET THESE ISSUES DISMISSED BUT THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES. SO IT'S UP TO YOU COUNCILMEMBERS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES TO BUILD AN ENVIRONMENTALLY STABLE CITY THAT PROTECTS OUR TREES AND -- >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT UP, WE HAVE JESSE SIMPSON POLLEDGY JASMINE SMITH AND SANDY SHET LERL. WELCOME, MR. SIMPSON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS. I AM JESSE SIMPSON WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM. EARLIER TODAY WE SENT YOU A LETTER SIGNED BY OVER 60 ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING AFFORDABLE DEVELOPERS, BUSINESS, LABOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES ASKING TO ACT WITH URGENCY ON THE SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAKE SPECIAL AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED ONE SEATTLE PLAN. WE NEED TO CREATE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO BUILD HOMES IN SEATTLE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS OUR DEEP HOUSING SHORTAGE. THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS OF THE FEIS CLEARS THE WAY FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE REAL PROGRESS AND IT'S TIME TO FOLLOW THROUGH BY APPROVING THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE AND ACTING TO ADOPT A BOLD FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEFORE THE SUMMER RECESS. OUR LETTER OUTLINES SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN THE PLAN LIKE EXPANDING THE STACKED FLAT DENSITY BONUS, CREATING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITYWIDE AND MORE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS IN LOW DISPLACEMENT HIGH OPPORTUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS- . >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE JASMINE SMITH. WELCOME. FOLLOWED BY SANDY SHETLER. >> HI. I'M JASMINE SMITH WITH FUTURE WISE AND THE CO-CHAIR OF THE COMPLETE COMMUNITIES COALITION AND AS JESSE POINTED OUT REALLY THRILLED TO SEE THAT WE HAVE CLEARED THE WAY TO CONTINUE THIS WORK ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BUILD ON WHAT WILL PLAY -- A STRONG MODEL ORDINANCE FOR HB 1110 AND GO INTO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE, BUILD WHAT WE NEED FOR OUR COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE CITY AND BUILD THOSE CONNECTIONS FROM QUEEN ANNE TO, SORRY, FROM QUEEN ANNE TO COLUMBIA CITY AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT FOR ALL OF US. WHILE WE ARE MOVING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COLLABORATION THAT'S HAPPENED ACROSS THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CITY FROM THE -- OH, LEGISLATION AND EVERYTHING BETWEEN. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE GOOD. YOU STILL HAD TEN SECONDS. THAT CHIME MEANT TEN SECONDS. WE CAN GIVE YOU BACK YOUR TEN SECONDS? YOU SURE? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. >> I HAVE TO RUSH AND ANYWAY, I WILL DO THE BEST I CAN. >> ALL RIGHT. >> HI, EVERYONE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M SANDY SHETLER WITH TREE ACTION SEATTLE. THANK YOU FOR INVITING US TODAY AND THANKS ESPECIALLY TO COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF FOR THE POWERPOINT WHICH NOTES THAT THIS BILL FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ONGOING LOSS OF SEATTLE'S TREES. FEW REALIZE THAT PRAUJS WITH FOUR UNITS PER LOT ARE ALREADY BEING BUILT IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES UNDER THE CURRENT SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE IN WEDGWOOD WHICH I WILL EMAIL TO EACH OFOF OFFICES. RIGHT NOW THE FOURTH SECTION -- FOURTH STRUCTURE IS BUILD AS A GARAGE AND UNHEATED STORAGE SPACE UNDER THE CURRENT CODE. ONCE PASSED THESE WILL BE COULDN'T VERTED TO HOMES. BUILDERS ARE SHOWING US THAT THEY CAN MEET HB 1110 AND WORK WITH EXISTING SETBACKS AND TREE REQUIREMENTS. WHY COVER MORE LAND THAN COULD GROW TREES WITH PAVEMENT? WE HOPE FOR STACKED FLATS AND SPACE FOR TREES IN OUR ULTIMATELY VISION OF THE COMP PLAN. FOR NOW WE SEEK TO -- >> THANK YOU, SANDY. NEXT WE HAVE ROBERT REED FOLLOWED BY JACKIE BOURHIS AND THEN CHRIS. HELLO, ROBERT. >> COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. >> IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MIC OR PULL IT TO YOU SO WE CAN HEAR YOU A LITTLE BETTER. >> WHAT ABOUT NOW? >> PERFECTO. >> THANK YOU, JOY. SO I'M BACK ONCE AGAIN TO JUST SUPPORT THE TREE CANOPY IN SEATTLE AND REMIND ALL OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON WEBSITE GREEN CITIES GOOD HEALTH. AND THE THOUGHT THAT SEATTLE COULD BE A FOREST CITY. WE'RE SO CLOSE IN SO MANY NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S NOT IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON SEATTLE AS WHOLE IS INCREDIBLE. VERY SIMPLE WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO AMEND THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN TO CHANGE THE GREEN FACTOR SCORE FROM 0. 3 TO 1.30. AND THE EFFECT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE ON DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE AMAZING. THANKS. >> WHEN YOU HEAR THE DING, YOU HAVE TEN SECONDS LEFT. NEXT, JACKIE FOLLOWED BY CHRIS. >> HELLO. >> HELLO. >> HI. DOES THIS WORK? >> YES. >> HI, I AM JACKIE BOURJOS AND I REPRESENT PART OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FRIENDS OF QUEEN ANNE AND I AM HERE TO SAY THAT THE HB 1110 IS ENOUGH. IT'S ENOUGH TO FOSTER MIDDLE HOUSING IN SEATTLE. IT IS OBVIOUS FROM ALL OF THESE COMMENTS THAT WE ALL NEED MORE TIME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE INTERIM ORDINANCE, ESPECIALLY PARTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE CALCULATIONS, THE NUMBERS, THE SETBACKS, AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION CHANGES THAT WILL IMPACT LIVEABILITY AND SAFETY. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS NEED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST TO AVOID SLIDES. IN CLOSING I WANT TO INVITE ALL OF YOU TO VISIT THE AREAS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE SO OBVIOUSLY NOT READY FOR THESE KINDS OF CHANGES IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE THOUGH SUPPORTIVE OF HB 1110. HB 1110 -- IS ENOUGH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, JACKIE. CHRIS, WELCOME. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE. I AM A LONG TIME RESIDENTS OF D3 AND A LONG-TIME ASPIRING HOMEOWNER. THE GRAYS OF MY BEARD TELL THAT STORY. THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT IT IS ONLY A STEP. ONE THING THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ARE THE STILL ONEROUS PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE INTERIM BILL, INTERIM ORDINANCE. WE DON'T NEED TO IMAGINE A CRAZY ALTERNATIVE TO ELIMINATE PARKING IN THE CITY. TURNS OUT MANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE BUILT BEFORE THE CAR CAME TO THE CITY HAVE SHOWN THAT IMPACT WORKS JUST FINE. WHEN YOU START INCORPORATING SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE, AND ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WE'RE JUST SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SHRINKING THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON AVAILABLE LAND AND KEEP THE TREES AS WE TAKE UP MORE SPACE FOR PARKING. THERE IS PLENTY OF ON STREET PARKING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES AND THERE IS NO BETTER WAY TO PROTECT TREE CANOPY THAN TO BETTER UTILIZE THE FWLUT OF AVAILABLE STREET PARKING. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHRIS. I DON'T SEE ANY GRAY IN YOUR BEARD FROM HERE, SO YOU'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTERS. I DO HAVE A LIST IN FRONT OF ME. YOU WILL PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. THE FIRST PERSON WE HAVE ONLINE IS SUSAN WARD FOLLOWED BY SCOTT SURDIKE. YOU ARE UP. SUSAN, STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS. I REPRESENT THE THORNTON NT CREEK ALLIANCE AND SPEAKING TO THE INTERIM PROPOSAL FOR THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN. WHERE THERE ARE CREEKS AND WETLANDS DENSITY MUST BE REDUCED NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE LOSS THAT CONTAINS ECAs BUT RESPECT FOR REQUIRED BUFFER ZONES. INTERIM LEGISLATION MUST MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE HEALTH OF WILDLIFE ECAs IN EVERY CASE MUST BE TREATED AS REQUIRED AND SEPA AND PROTECTED BY DEFINED [ INAUDIBLE ]. THE INTERIM PROPOSAL PUTS TREE CANOPY UPON THE BACK BURNER. REQUIRED SETBACKS SHOULD BE -- IMMEDIATELY NOT IN A YEAR. FIVE AND TEN FOOT SETBACKS AND THE 20 FOOT UNCOVERED LAND MINIMUM WHICH ALLOWS PAVING OVER IT WILL REMOVE -- EXISTING THE TREES. POPULAR WITH THE CROSS SECTION BECAUSE THEY CREATE -- THAT CAN BE PLACED SO AS TO PRESERVE LARGE -- TREES. TO ENSURE THIS RESULT WILL OCCUR. THE QUESTION OF WISDOM [ INAUDIBLE ] THAT THEY OFFER -- >> THANK YOU, SUSAN. NEXT UP WE HAVE SCOTT. STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> HI, THIS IS SCOTT FROM COMMUNITY ROOTS HOUSING SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF CB 120948. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING -- WE HAVE OVER 43 TO UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT WE HAVE OVER 700 UNITS IN THE PLANNING STAGES. SOME IN THE PLANNING STAGES ALMOST FIVE YEARS BECAUSE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGES THAT ARE OUR INDUSTRY IS FACING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS WITH THE PANDEMIC AND WITH THE INTEREST RATES. SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS TWO PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR REPRESENT 350 UNITS, OF TRANSIT STOPS IN THE RAINIER VALLEY. IF WE ARE FORCED TO KPLOOI WITH THE 2021 RIGHT NOW THEY ARE VESTED UNDER THE 2015 CODE, THAT WILL ADD $6.9 MILLION TO THE COST OF THESE PROJECTS. WE CANNOT TAKE -- WE ASK YOU TO PLEASE MOVE THIS FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHWITH OUR AND PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SCOTT. NEXT UP WE HAVE MARTHA BASKIN, STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> SURE CAN. >> ALL RIGHT. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION A FEW POINTS FROM CB 120969, THE INTERIM STATE ZONING COMPLIANCE BILL PREPARED BY CENTRAL STAFF BECAUSE IT INFORMS THE ORDINANCE RELANDING TO THE -- ZONING ORDINANCES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. IN A SECTION TITLED DEVELOPMENT -- IMPACTS ON PAGE 26, CENTRAL COUNCIL STAFF SAY THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDERCONSIDER CB 120969'S PROPOSED INCREASES IN MAXIMUM LOTLOT COVERAGE WILL IMPACT RETENTION WHETHER IT MEETS THE COUNCIL RETENTION GOALS. IT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT CB 120969 SETBACKS STRUCTURE WITH HEIGHTS WILL IMPACT THE FLEXIBILITY ALLOWED IN THE CURRENT CODE TO RETAIN TREES AND WHETHER TO AMEND ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO AMENITY AREAS. THE CITY COUNCIL ARE TASKED WITH REACHING 30% CANOPY GOALS BY 2037 AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN CB 120969 WILL -- THAT GOAL LEAVING A BARON CITY -- >> THANK YOU, MARTHA. NEXT UP, JOSHUA MORRIS. PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. >> I AM THE CONSERVATION DIRECTOR FOR SEATTLE URBAN CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION WITH 13,000 SUPPORTERS. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE TREE EQUITY NETWORK. INCREASE PRESSURE ON TREE REMOVAL HIGHLIGHTING PRESERVING AND CREATING CONTIGUOUS AREAS FOR TREES DURING DEVELOPMENT MISSING FROM THE INTERIM LEGISLATION AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WILL RESHARE THAT LETTER FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, JOSHUA. NEXT WE HAVE SANJAY. >> HI. I'M SANJAY. I'M A GRAD STUDENT, A Ph.D. STUDENT AT UW, I LIVE ON CAPITOL HILL. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GO MUCH FURTHER IN UPZONING AND IN PROMOTING DENSITY WITHIN THE CITY OF SEATTLE. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK IT GOOD THAT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING REMOVED WITHIN A HALF- MILE OF TRANSIT STOPS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO FURTHER, TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT SPACE FOR CARS AND ALSO THE UNNECESSARY SETBACKS THAT REMAIN IN THE PLAN TAKE SPACE AWAY FROM BOTH HOUSING AND ALSO FROM TREES. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST TAKE THAT IN ORDER TO BUILD A MORE LIVEABLE CITY, WE NEED TO HAVE MORE HOUSING, WE NEED IT TO BE -- AND IN ORDER FOR HOUSING TO BE CHEAPER IT NEEDS TO BE MORE -- AND JUST TO SAY PEOPLE IN MY GENERATION, THE WORKING CLASS, WE CAN'T AFFORD THESE THINGS ANYMORE. WE NEED TO HAVE MORE AVAILABLE. >> THANK YOU, SANJAY. NEXT WE HAVE DAVID HAYNES. >> THANK YOU. WE NEED LIVEABLE AMENITY SPACE, NOT ROADS TO DRIVE THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS WEAPONIZING TREE ORDINANCES TO DENY BETTER CHOICE IN HOME. WE NEED A BUILD-OUT WITH LESS RESTRICTIONS FOR HIGHER LEVELS THAT GO BEYOND HB 1110. WE CAN SAVE TREES BY BUILDING HIGHER. IS IT TRUE THAT THE MIDDLE HOUSING IS ONLY ALLOWED TO GO 32 FEET HIGH? THAT'S A TELL-TALE SIGN THERE IS A SABOTAGE WITHIN THE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE 21st CENTURY FUTURE OF YOUNGER GENERATIONS, MULTITUDES OF US. WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE ONE SEATTLE PLAN THAT'S TAINTED IN RACIST POLICIES THAT WANT TO SPREAD DISTRICT LOW QUALITY LOW LEVEL INNER CITY MODERN THIRD WORLD BUILDINGS AND SPREAD IT AROUND ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS. WE NEED TO GO BEYOND THE BUILD- OUT OF THREE TO SIX -- WE NEED TO HAVE INCENTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPERS INSTEAD OF PAYING TO MHA FEE FUNDS THAT HIRES UNQUALIFIED NON- PROFITS THAT ARE UNDERMINING -- >> THANK YOU, DAVID. NOW WE HAVE MEGHAN. JUST PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. CAN YOU HEAR US, MEGHAN? JUST PRESS STAR 6. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MEGHAN McKIERNAN. I AM A NATIVE OF SEATTLE AND I REALIZE THE SUBJECT MATTER TODAY IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I HAVE A LITTLE DIGRESSION, BUT BEGINNING WITH THE DEIS, IT IS STATED THE CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE WAS UPDATED, IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THE UPDATES WILL DECREASE THE RATE OF CANOPY LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN FACT CURRENTCURRENT COLLECTED SHOWS WE LOST OVER 2,000 TREES LAST YEAR, AND THIS YEAR IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS WE HAVE CUT DOWN 1253 DEGREES. SHOULD THIS RATE CONTINUE, SEATTLE STANDS TO LOSE 5,000. AMONG THESE TREES WILL VERY LIKELY BE A 100-YEAR-OLD SEQUOIA IN THE GREEN LAKE AREA. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IS CONSIDERING INTERIM LEGISLATION ON APRIL 21 AT -- >> THANK YOU, MEGHAN. AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTERS. I DON'T THINK ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP. SO THAT WILL OFFICIALLY CLOSE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR COMING OUT FOR SPEAKING TODAY. JUST A REMINDER, WE ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS WE CONTINUE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN A PUBLIC HEARING THAT÷÷THAT STATE LATER ON DURING THE TIME WHICH WE WILL BE HERE TO LISTON TO PEOPLE'S COMMENTS AS WELL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COUNCILMEMBERS. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH FOLKS. A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE ALSO BEEN OUT ON NEIGHBORHOOD WALKS AS WELL. THERE IS ALSO BEEN A TON OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS AS WELL. AND SO WE ARE EXTREMELY ACCESSIBLE AND AVAILABLE TO TALK TO PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY ONE-ON-ONE, AND CONNECT WITH FOLKS REGARDING SOME OF THEIR ISSUES OR IDEAS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE OR WHATEVER IT IS. I KNOW THAT OUR OFFICE IS REALLY ACCESSIBLE AND I KNOW THAT THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AND I WANT TO THANK THEM, I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE IN OUR DISTRICTS AND CONTINUE TO BE THE FRONT PORCH OF THIS. SO THANK YOU. SO NEXT I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT MOST OF YOU HAVE ALSO HEARD THAT LAST FRIDAY THE HEARING EXAMINER DISMISSED THE REMAINING APPEALS. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT MEANS THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE IS ABLE TO RESUME LEGISLATION MOVING FORWARD. THAT BEING SAID WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PASSING OF THE INTERIM LEGISLATION IN TAKING ON SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS WITH HB 1110 SO THAT WE CAN MEET THE STATE'S DEADLINE, WHICH IS JUNE 30th FOR IMPLEMENTATION. AS A REMINDER, HB 1110 IS A STATE MANDATED LEGISLATION TO CREATE MISSILE -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT WORD CAME FROM, MISSILE MIDDLE HOUSING. I COMBINED MISSING AND MIDDLE TOGETHER. A NEW WORD. AFTER WE PASS INTERIM LEGISLATION FOR HB 1110, THEN IT'S PHASE ONE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THAT IS PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR HB 1110, SO ÷÷THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT LAYERS THAT WE HAVE TO SQUUGLE DURING THIS PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINE BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATION. I ALSO WANT -- OR STATE MANDATE DEADLINE. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT IS MONDAY, MAY 19th, BEGINNING AT 9:30 A.M. SO THAT IS MONDAY, MAY 19th, BEGINNING AT 9:30 A.M. WE ARE GOING TO BE RELEASINGRELEASING INFORMATION SOON ON THE TIMING FOR VIRTUAL AND IN- PERSON PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS DATE. SO PLEASE CHECK THE CLERK'S WEBSITE FOR THIS NEW INFORMATION AS WE PLAN FOR THIS. THE TOPIC FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING ARE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERIM HOUSE BILL 1110 LEGISLATION. SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT BE ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS FOR THE INTERIM LEDGE STATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1110. EVERY LEDGE STATION WE HAVE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING DURING THAT PROCESS. WE ARE MANDATED TO POST AMENDMENTS FOR 30 DAYS. SO YOU ALL CAN GET THOSE AND SOSO THAT'S WHY IT IS ON MAY 19. WE ARE JUGGLING A LOT OF THINGS HERE. THERE ARE A LOT OF LOGISTICS, A LOT OF DIFFERENT KPOEN TOENTS THIS. AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAD EARLY ONON 5th, DUE TO THE SEVERE WEATHER, OUR OFFICE MADE THE PROMISE TO HONOR THE SPEAKING ORDER OF THOSE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK AT THE END. MEETING AND WE WILL UPHOLD THAT AS WE HAVE COMBED THROUGH EVERYONE WHO WROTE DOWN THEIR NAME ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR ON THE SHEETS AND ONLINE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE THAT PROS FORWARD BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WERE CONCERNED PEOPLE AND ALSO COUNCILMEMBERS BROUGHT THAT UP AS WELL. THIS IS DUE TO THE SEVERE WEATHER THAT WE HAD TO SHORTEN THAT TIME. SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. SO TODAY AND YOU ALREADY MADE YOUR WAY UP TO THE TABLE, OUR FAVORITE CENTRAL STAFF. REORIENTING US TO THE INTERIM LEGISLATION TODAY, OUR WONDERFUL CENTRAL STAFF. THEY WILL BE PRESENTING ON THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERIM LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1110 AS WE DELIBERATE ON SOME AMENDMENTS. WILL THE CLERK READ ITEM ONE INTO THE AGENDA? >> CB 120969 LAND USE ANDAND IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS TO COMPLY WITH LAWS, ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A WORK PLAN FOR PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION. >> FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE PRESENT YOURSELF, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN YOU CAN JUMP INTO YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> JENNIFER LABRECQUE. >> ASHA VENKATARAMAN, COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF. >> THANK YOU, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, TODAY WE ARE GOING TO DIVE INTO CB 120969 THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSE INTERIM LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STATE LAWS. HOUSE BILL 1110 AND A SECOND BILL WHICH AMENDED HOUSE BILL 1110 . HOUSE BILL 1293 RELATED TO DESIGN STANDARDS, SENATE BILL 6015 RELATED TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND HOUSE BILL 1287 RELATED TO ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING IN NEW DEVELOPMENT. CB 120969 IS DRAFTED AS INTERIM LEGISLATION, WHICH MEANS IT WILL BE IN EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR. WITHIN WHICH TIME WE EXPECT THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BE ADOPTING PERMANENT LEGISLATION THAT WILL COMPLETELY REPLACE COUNCIL BILL 120969. AS YOU LOOK AT PERMANENT LEGISLATION, IT WILL BE A NEW BILL THAT WOULD BE REPLACING THIS BILL. THIS IS INTERIM SORT OF STOPGAP BILL. REQUIRES SEATTLE TO ALLOW AT LEAST SIX OF NINE MIDDLE HOUSING TIMES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WE HAVE BEEN OVER THESE BEFORE. CB 120969 WOULD ALLOW ALL NINE OF THESE HOUSING TYPES OF IT INCLUDES A DEFINITION OF MIDDLE HOUSING THAT GOES BEYOND THE NINE HOUSING TYPES INCLUDED IN HOUSE BILL 1110. IT SAYS THAT STRUCTURES LESS THAN 32 FEET TALL THAT HAVE ANY ONE OF THESE USES ARE CONSIDERED MIDDLE HOUSING. CARRIAGE HOUSES, RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, ADULT HOUSING ARE TYPES OF HOUSING NOT INCLUDED IN HOUSE BILL 1110 BUT WOULD BE CONSIDERED MIDDLE HOUSING UNDER COUNCIL BILL 120969. THE ONLY APPLICABILITY OF THIS DEFINITION IN THE BILL IS PARKING. SO WITHIN THE HALF- MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP PARKING WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES AND BICYCLE PARKING WOULD ALSO NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES. COUNCILMEMBERS MENTIONED AN INTEREST IN SUPPORTING STACKED FLATS, BASICALLY APARTMENTS THAT ARE CONDOMINIUMS, RESIDENTIAL UNITS STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. AS OF NOW, THE MAJORITY OF UNITS IN SEATTLE ARE COULD BE STANDARD STACKED FLATS. BUT THEY ARE TYPICALLY IN MUCH LARGER BUILDINGS, FIVE, SIX STORIES OR 40 OR 50 STORIES DOWNTOWN. IN ITS ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT THE MAYOR RELEASED LAST FALL WHICH INCLUDED AN INCENTIVE FOR STACKED FLATS, ECONORTHWEST DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE BUILT THAN OTHER REAL HOUSING TYPES DUE TO THEIR INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS. ONCE YOU START STACKING UNITS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, YOU ARE KICKED INTO THE BUILDING CODE RATHER THAN THE RESIDENTIAL CODE, AND THE STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, PARTICULARLY FIRE, LIFE SAFETY ARE HIGHER. AND THEN IF IT'S AN OWNER- OCCUPIED UNIT, IT REQUIRES DESIGNATION AS A CONDOMINIUM OR A CO-OP. CURRENTLY INSURANCE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONDOMINIUMS ARE HIGHER THAN FOR OTHER HOUSING TYPES. AND THE COMBINATION OF THOSE INCREASED COSTS FOR STACKED FLATS MAKE IT LESS LIKELY THAT STACKED FLATS WOULD BE DEVELOPED UNDER THAT MODEL CODE. HOWEVER, THEY ALSO FOUND THAT IF BUILT, STACKED FLATS UNDER THAT CODE WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN NEW SINGLE FAMILY OR TOWNHOUSE UNITS. THE DRAFT BILL THAT THE MAYOR RELEASED LAST FALL AND THAT PROBABLY WILL BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION THAT YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING LATER THIS YEAR INCLUDED AN INCENTIVE FOR STACKED FLATS THAT HAD AN INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO AND DOUBLED THE DENSITY FROM TYPICAL MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT BILL, BUT THE COUNCIL COULD INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND I THINK PROBABLY INCREASE THE DENSITY LIMIT FOR STACKED FLATS UNDER THE INTERIM LEGISLATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. WHICH COULD INCENTIVIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME STACKED FLAT PROJECTS, ALTHOUGH AS THE ECONORTHWEST SAID, IT WILL BE A CHALLENGE. AND PROBABLY THESE UNITS WOULD BE LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE TYPES THAT WE'RE ANALYZING UNDER THE ECONORTHWEST STUDY. COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE ALSO ASKED FOR STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT LEGACY HOMEOWNERS STAYING IN THEIR HOMES, PARTICULARLY WITH AREAS OF HIGH DISPLACEMENT AND NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL DID FUND WORK TO SUPPORT HOMEOWNERS STABILIZATION SERVICES IN COMMUNITIES AT HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS LAST YEAR. ONE MODEL THAT YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF INCENTIVES FOR LEGACY HOMEOWNERS IS OUR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS THAT PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THAT SUPPORTS THE CREATION OF ACCESSORY DEVELOPMENT UNITS. ADDITIONAL UNITS ON THE LOT WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE. THEY ARE NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT SO YOU COULD BUILD AN ADU ON TOP OF MAXING OUT THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING UNIT'S DENSITY. THEY DON'T REQUIRE STREET IMPROVEMENTS IF YOU ADD IN ADU. YOU CAN ADD DETACHED ADUs IN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REAR YARDS. ADUs ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PARKING AND THE CITY HAS SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRE- APPROVED DESIGNS FOR ADUs SO THAT A PROPERTY OWNER CANCAN GO THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS WITH A PLAN THAT THEY KNOW WILL PASS PERMIT REVIEW. IN ADDITION TO THE PROVISIONS ABOUT MIDDLE HOUSING, HOUSE BILL 1110 REQUIRES THAT THE CITY INCREASE THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED ON OUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS. AND DENSITY IS CONSIDERED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. FIRST IS THROUGH DENSITY LIMITS, WHICH ARE CALCULATED EITHER BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITTED ON A LOT OR THE SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA PERMITTED PER UNIT. SO UNDER THE SECOND IF YOU HAVE LIKE A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, IT WILL SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS. YOU CAN HAVE ONE UNIT PER 1250 SQUARE FEET, SO YOU CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS ON THAT 5,000 SQUARE FOOT PLAT. DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO MANAGED THROUGH FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS WHICH ARE THE RATIO OF SQUARE FOOT OF SPACE WITHIN A STRUCTURE TO THE LOT AREA. SO A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT HAS 0.5 F.A.R. BECAUSE OF THIS HALF OF THE LOT AREA, 6,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT HAS 1. 2 F.A.R. AND SO THAT'S THE RANGE OF DENSITIES THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING UNDER CURRENT ZONING AND COUNCIL BILL 120969. UNDER OUR CURRENT ZONING AND COUNCIL BILL 120969 THERE IS A MINIMUM LOT AREA PROVIDED FOR THE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT RANGES FROM ONE UNIT PER 9,600 SQUARE FEET IN OUR LEASE DENSE ZONE UP TO ONE UNIT PER 2,000 SQUARE FEET IN A RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONE. THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE LOT SIZES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND THAT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS AS WELL. COUNCIL BILL 120969 INCLUDES DENSITY LIMITS, LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON A LOT. THESE COMES FROM HOUSE BILL 1110. I THINK YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THEM. THE BILL INCLUDES EXCEPTIONS FOR LOTS WITH ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS, IN PARTICULAR RIPARIAN CORRIDORS, WETLANDS AND WETLAND BUFFERS. SUBMERGED LANDS AND AREAS WITHIN THE SHORELINE SETBACK AND IN LOTS WITH THESE ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS, YOU COULD STILL BUILD HOUSING BUT YOU ARE -- THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN BUILD IS REDUCED. IT'S REDUCED BY THE PERCENTAGE OF THE LOT AREA THAT IS IN THESE ECAs. SO IF HALF OF YOUR LOT IS IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN BUILD IS HALVED. UNDER THE BILL FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS ARE DETERMINED BASED ON HOW MANY UNITS, BASED ON THE UNIT DENSITY ON YOUR LOT. SO IF YOU HAVE ONE UNIT ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, A TYPICAL SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSE UNDER TODAY'S ZONING, YOU HAVE A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 4.6 A SLIGHT INCREASE OF THE 0.5 YOU HAVE TO TODAY. IF YOU HAVE FOUR UNITS ON THE LOT, YOU HAVE A FLOOR AREA RATIORATIO 1.2. DOUBLE THE FLOOR AREA IF YOU HAVE MORE UNITS ON YOUR LOT. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THESE FLOOR AREA RATIO UNIT LIMITS. SO YOU CAN BUILD TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE 1,000 SQUARE FEET EACH ON TOP OF THESE FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS. AND UNDER THE BILL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE COUNTED TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY LIMIT. THERE IS A SEPARATE BILL THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THE LAND USE COMMITTEE THAT WOULD NOT COUNT ADUs TOWARDS THE UNIT DENSITY LIMIT. SO THERE IS A LITTLE TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS. WE EXPECT THAT 1200949 WILL BE ADOPTED BEFORE COUNCIL BILL 120969, AND WILL BE COMING IN WITH AMENDMENTS TO RECONCILE THE TWO LEGISLATIONS AS AMENDMENTS TO THIS COUNCIL BILL 120969. ONE ISSUE IS THE CODE ALLOWS A MINIMUM OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE LOT IS, PROVIDED IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPABLE LOT. THAT PROVISION IS NOT IN COUNCIL BILL 120969. SO TAKING AN EXAMPLE OF A 3750 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN OUR THREE ZONE, WHICH IS THE SMALLEST LOT IN THAT ZONE, IT'S BELOW THE ONE UNIT PER 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT, UNDER TODAY'S CODE YOU COULD BUILD A PRINCIPAL UNIT 2,500 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION YOU COULD BUILD A UNIT THAT IS 2250 SQUARE FEET. IN EITHER CASE YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ON TOP OF THE LOT AREA -- OR THE FLOOR THAT THAT YOU ARE PERMITTED. ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER AND MAYBE CONSIDER WITH PERMANENT LEGISLATION, THERE ARE DIFFERENT ROUNDING STANDARDS DEPENDING ON THE ZONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE MARGINS, PROJECTS THAT ARE JUST BELOW, FOR EXAMPLE, 5,000 SQUARE FEET OR JUST BELOW 10,000 SQUARE FEET IN OUR THREE ZONE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD ONE UNIT, WHEREAS TODAY THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO USING A MORE STANDARD ROUNDING CONVENTION. AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO ASHA SO YOU CAN STOP LISTENING TO ME BLABBER ON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS. AS YOU SEE, I'LL BE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN COUNCIL BILL 120969. THE BILL DOES PROPOSE TO REGULATE A VARIETY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. WE TALKED ABOUT DENSITY AND FLOOR AREA RATIO. THIS TALKS WITH STRUCTURE HEIGHT SETBACKS AND YARDS LOT IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES, LOWRISE ZONES. THESE STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO BALANCE BUILT SPACE WITH OPEN SPACE AND ENSURE THAT IT IS CREATING A SPECIFIC AESTHETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT ALLOWS FOR LIGHT AIR AND SPACE BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 1110 INCREASED DENSITY ON LOTS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, THIS COUNCIL BILL RESULTS -- EXCUSE ME, THIS COUNCIL BILL DOES CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE SPACES THAT NOW WILL HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY OF UNITS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES THE HEIGHT LIMITS COMPARED IN TERMS OF WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT CODE COMPARED TO WHAT IS IN COUNCIL BILL 120969 AND THE MODEL CODE. FOR YOU CAN SEE FOR THE MOST PART, THE CURRENT CODE HAS A MUCKS MUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 30 FEET IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES. COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD PROPOSE TO INCREASE THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 32 FEET PLUS THE HEIGHT OF A PITCHED ROOF. THE MODEL CODE PRIMARILY APPLIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONES, BUT RECOMMENDS A 35 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT PLUS THE PITCHED ROOF. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YARD LIMITS IN CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND RSL ZONES YOU WILL SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS SETBACK LIMITS. THAT'S JUST A TERMINOLOGY ISSUE, YARDS ARE PRIMARILY REFERRED TO IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND RSL ZONES. AS YOU SEE, THEY ARE THE CURRENT LIMITS IN AN R ZONES FOR FRONT, REAR, SIDE AND GARAGES DIFFER FROM BOTH WHAT THE CODE SAYS FOR RSL ZONES AS WELL AS FOR WHAT IS PROPOSED IN COUNCIL BILL 120969. THEY WOULD IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS REQUIREMENTS WOULD GENERALLY BE REDUCED IN THE FRONT YARDS CURRENTLY THE STANDARD IS THE LESSER OF EITHER 20 FEET ORT AVERAGE OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE- FAMILY STRUCTURES ON EACH SIDE. RSL ZONES CURRENTLY ARE LIMITED TO TEN FEET AND COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A TEN- FOOT YARD LIMIT. THE MODEL CODE AS YOU SEE DOES REFER TO A 15-FOOT LIMIT EXCEPT FOR 10 FEET WITH LOTS OF THE UNIT DENSITY OF THREE OR MORE AM THE MEMO PROVIDES THE COMPARISON, SO I WON'T GO THROUGH THE REAR, SIDE AND GARAGES FOR EACH OF THE ZONES, BUT YOU SEE IN GENERAL THERE IS EITHER A DECREASE IN THE YARD LIMIT OR IT'S STAYING THE SAME THE RSL ZONES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. FOR IN TERMS OF SETBACK LIMITS, THIS APPLIES IN LR ZONES. FOR AS YOU SEE IN THE CURRENT CODE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT LIMITS FOR THE DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF HOUSING. THINGS LIKE COTTAGE HOUSING AND TOUCHDOWNS, ROW HOUSES AND APARTMENTS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. WHAT COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD DO WOULD STANDARDIZE EACH OF THOSE REGARDLESS OF THE TIME OF HOUSING BEING BUILT. SO IT WOULD MOVE TO A SYSTEM IN WHICH ANY FRONT SETBACK WOULD BE A SEVEN FOOT AVERAGE WITH A FIVE FOOT MINIMUM, REAR SETBACK A SEVEN FOOT AVERAGE WITH A FIVE FOOT MINIMUM IF IT ABUTS AN ALLEY WITH ZERO FOOT MINIMUM WITH AN ALLEY AND SIDE SETBACKS YOU WOULD BE AT FIVE FEET PROPOSED IN COUNCIL BILL 120969. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. FOR LOT COVERAGE THE EXISTING LOT COVERAGE IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEPENDS. LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET PLUS 15% OF THE LOT AREA. AND FOR A LOT WITH 5,000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET THE STANDARD WOULD BE 35%. COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD INCREASE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO 50% REGARDLESS OF THE LOT SIZE. IN RSL ZONES THAT STANDARD WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED AT 50%. AND I HAVE PROVIDED WHAT THE MODEL CODE PROPOSED, WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY VARYING AMOUNT OF MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE DEPENDING ON THE DENSITY. SO A HIGHER LOT COVERAGE FOR UNITS, EXCUSE ME, LOTS WITH SIX UNITS SLIGHTLY WER. FOR STRUCTURE WIDTH THIS IS PRIMARILY AFFECTING LR ZONES. SO CURRENTLY -- AND JUST A QUICK CORRECTION. WHAT IS UP ON THE SLIDE RIGHT NOW÷÷ APPLIES LR 1 AND LR-2 ZONES. CURRENTLY NO STRUCTURE FOR COTTAGE AND ROW HOUSING, 60 FOOT MAXIMUM WIMBLEDONING FOR TOWNHOUSES AND 45 230R APARTMENTS. LR 3 ZONES IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THE CURRENT CODE DOES NOT HAVE A LIMIT ON WIDTH FOR COTTAGE AND ROW HOUSES SIMILAR TO THE LR 1 AND 2 ZONES BUT FOR TOWNHOUSES AND APARTMENTS OUTSIDE OF URBAN VILLAGES, CENTERS OR STATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS THE MAXIMUM IS 120 FEET AND FOR TOWNHOUSE AND APARTMENTS INSIDE THOSE HOUSES IT'S 150 FEET. IN COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD CHANGE THAT MAXIMUM TO 90 FEET REGARDLESS OF STRUCTURE TYPE IN LR 1 AND 2 ZONES AND WOULD BE UP TOP 150 FEET IN LR 3 ZONES. SO FOR SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE LAID OUT ON THIS SLIDE HERE, THE FIRST IS ABOUT THE IMPACT MUCH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON MIDDLE HOUSING GENERALLY. SO IN GENERAL THE COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER WHETHER TO TAKE ACTIONS LIKE ADDING BONUSES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF HOUSING THAT IT WANTS TO SEE MORE OF. FOR EXAMPLE, COUNCIL BILL 120969 INCREASES MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN NR ZONES FROM 30 TO 32 FEET WITH AN ALLOWANCE FOR PITCHED ROOFS. THE COUNCIL HAS THE OPTION OF INSTEAD USING SOMETHING LIKE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED IN THE MODEL CODE AT 35 FEET, SO THAT INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THAT ADDITIONAL THREE FEET COULD BE USED AS A BONUS FOR THE TYPES OF HOUSING THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE. SIMILARLY, THAT COULD BE THE CASE FOR ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SPECIFIC TO THE TYPES OF HOUSING THAT THE COUNCIL WANT TO SEE MORE OF. THE SECOND TWO QUESTIONS RELATE TO TREE RETENTION. AS WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED, THE INCREASES IN COUNCIL BILL 120969 ON MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, STRUCTURE ITEMS, ADJUSTED YARD SIZES, IN ADDITION TO THE DENSITY AND F.A.R. CHANGES, ALL OF THOSE CHANGES WILL ALTER THE FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS COMPARED TO THE STRUCTURES CURRENTLY BEING BUILT AND THAT CHANGES THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE AVAILABLE FOR TREE RETENTION. THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ACCOUNT FOR IMPACTS ON RERETENTION. THE INCENTIVES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR TREE RETENTION IN THE CODE, THOSE DEVELOPMENT -- EXCUSE ME, THE INTERIM LEGISLATION DOES NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THE TREE CODE AS PROPOSED. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL IMPACT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WAIVERS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR TREE RETENTION. SO FOR SOMETHING LIKE IN LR ZONES, FOR EXAMPLE, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LOTS THAT ARE UNDERGOING DEVELOPMENT CAN BE MODIFIED IF AN APPLICANT CHOOSES TO÷÷ RETAIN A TIER TWO TREE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REMOVED. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CAN BE -- DECREASE UP TO 75% STRUCTURE WIDTH INCREASE UP TO 30%. SO AS WE DISCUSSED CURRENTLY LR 1 ZONES THE STRUCTURE STANDARD IS 45 FEET. COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD INCREASE THAT TO 90 FEET. OBVIOUSLY, 30% IN A CHANGE TO A WIDTH OF 45 FEET IS DIFFERENT FROM A -- EXCUSE ME, 30% CHANCE TO 90 FEET. THOSE CHANGES WILL IMPACT WHAT KIND OF OPEN SPACE IS AVAILABLE TO RETAIN TREES. AND SO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE LAID OUT HERE ARE ABOUT WHETHER COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO CHANGE ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BASED ON HOW IT WOULD IMPACT TREE RETENTION GOALS OR WHETHER TO ADD IN THINGS LIKE AMENITY AREAS OR OPEN SPACE. I'LL NOTE THAT THE INTERIM LEGISLATION DOES NOT PROPOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO AMENITIES OR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS BUT THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION WOULD PROPOSE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES ADDING IN A REQUIREMENT FOR AMENITY AREAS IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND ADJUSTING THE AMENITY AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE LR ZONES. I WILL PASS IT TO JEN. >> THANK YOU. I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS IN BOTH COUNCIL BILL 120969 ASAS AS HB 1110. SO THE INTERIM LEGISLATION INCLUDES A PROVISION FROM HOUSE BILL 1110 TO AWLOU SIX UNITS PER LOT IN NR ZONES IF THEY ARE NOT WITHIN A QUARTER MILE WALKING DISTANCE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP IF TWO OF THOSE UNITS ARE AFOBDABLE TO LOW NORTH CAROLINA HOUSEHOLDS. LOW- INCOME WOULD BE CONSIDERED -- FOR SALE UNITS AND 60% AMI FOR RENTAL AND UNITS WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS. THIS IS A VOLUNTARY BONUS PROGRAM. IT IS UP TO THE DEVELOPER WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROVIDING THOSE TWO AFFORDABLE ADDITIONAL AND AFFORDABLE UNITS. THE IMPACTS OF THE AFFORDABILITY PROVISION ARE LIKELY TO BE LIMITED WHILE THE DEVELOPER WOULD GET TWO ADDITIONAL UNITS. >> THOSE TWO UNITS AT A SALES PRICE OR A RENT LEVEL WELL BELOW THE MARKET. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR OWNER- OCCUPIED UNITS WHERE THE DELTA BETWEEN THE AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE AND THE MARKET PRICE COULD BE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. AS SUCH, THIS FORDABILITY PROVISION WITHIN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION IS LIKELY MOST LIKELY TO BE USED BY NON- PROFIT HOMEOWNERSHIP DEVELOPERS. IT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE USED BY AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPERS BECAUSE THEIR PROJECTS NEED TO BE AT A MUCH LARGER SCALE TO PENCIL. MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. UNDER THIS PROGRAM, WHERE THEY ARE CHANGES TO ZONING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY NEW RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MUST PROVIDE A PERCENTAGE OF LOWER INCOME UNITS KNOWN AS PERFORMANCE OR MAKE IN LIEU FEE PAYMENT. MHA DOES NOT APPLY IN MOST INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY APPLY IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THE EXCEPTION IS THAT MHA DOES APPLY IN RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT OR RSL ZONES WHICH IS A TYPE OF NR ZONING WITHIN URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARIES. NEITHER THE INTERIM NOR THE PROPOSED PERMANENT LEGISLATION WOULD EXTEND MHA TO NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES, ALTHOUGH H BILL 1110 DOES NOT PROHIBIT JURISDICTIONS FROM DOING SO. WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND MHA TO NR ZONES IS A POLICY CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL. NEXT SLIDE. I WILL TAKE THE FEW MOMENTS TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME RECENT DATA ABOUT BOTH MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND ALSO FEASIBILITY OF MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND I SHARE THIS WITH YOU JUST FOR CONTEXT AS YOU, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT POLICIES BEFORE YOU. THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES PROVIDE SEVERAL INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES. ONE IS INFORMATION FROM BERK AND HEARTLAND'S RECENT MHA EVALUATION WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT THE MARCH 28 SELECT COMMITTEE. ECONORTHWEST MIDDLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, WHICH LISH HAS ALREADY REFERENCED, AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CENTRAL STAFF'S RESEARCH. BERK AND HEARTLAND'S MHA EVALUATION FOUND FOR THE MODEL SCENARIOS THEY RAN MHA HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON TOWNHOME FEASIBILITY, ESPECIALLY IN MEDIAN FEE AREAS. THIS WAS TRUE EVEN IN 2018 WHENWHEN CONDITIONS WERE MUCH MORE FAVORABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE BERK'S ANALYSIS WAS RUN ON MODEL SCENARIOS IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO MHA HAS NOT OCCURRED. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A DOUBLE NEGATIVE. IT SHOULD -- THAT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT HAS OCCURRED, THAT HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO MHA. CENTRAL STAFF'S ANALYSIS FOUND THAT THERE WERE ABOUT 900 PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR LESS THAT HAVE MADE AN MHA CONTRIBUTION IN LR ZONES SINCE MHA INCEPTION. MOST SMALL PROJECTS IN LR AREAS ARE TOWNHOMES. ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN 220 PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR LESS THAT MADE AN MHA CONTRIBUTION IN RSL ZONES. THE MHA EVALUATION ALSO LOOKED AT SOME PEER CITIES ALONG WITH OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS IN THE SEATTLE METROPOLITAN REGION TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE A MINIMUM UNIT THRESHOLD BEFORE THEIR INCLUSIONARY ZONE REQUIREMENTS APPLY. SORT OF APPLICABLE TO THESE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES WHERE WE ARE LIKELY TO SEE SMALLER PROJECTS HAPPEN. SEATTLE CURRENTLY HAS NO UNIT THRESHOLD FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR MHA PROGRAM. THE MAJORITY OF COMPARISON JURISDICTIONS IN THE REPORT HAD HAD UNIT THRESHOLD FROM FOUR TO 30 UNITS. A SEPARATE REPORT FOUND THAT MAJORITY OF PROGRAMS HAD A THRESHOLD, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NOT SORT OF CONSENSUS ON THE UNIT THRESHOLD SIZE. I'D LIKE IT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT ECONORTHWEST'S FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ON MIDDLE HOUSING. WHILE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO MHA, IT DOES PROVIDE VALUABLE DATA FOR UNDERSTANDING THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC VALUE PROVIDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THE OVERALL SCALE OF UNITS THAT COULD BE PROVIDED BY THESE UPZONES. THE STUDY LOOKED AT ABOUT 100,000 LOTS IN NR ZONES ACROSS THE CITY AND IT FOUND THAT MIDDLE HOUSING WOULD BE FEASIBLE ON ABOUT 19% OF THOSE LOTS OR ABOUT 19,000, WHICH IS AN INCREASE FROM THE 3% THAT WOULD BE WHERE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE FEASIBLE UNDER CURRENT ZONING. OVERALL, THE UPZONE COULD RESULT IN A HE NET INCREASE OF 23,000 UNITS OVER WHAT IS CURRENTLY POSSIBLE FOR A TOTAL OF 36,000 UNITS. THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ALSO FOUND THAT MIDDLE HOUSING IS SENSITIVE TO COST INCREASES. IF COST INCREASED BY $18,000 PER UNIT, 25 OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE CONSIDERED FEASIBLE WOULD NO LONGER BE FEASIBLE. 25% AND IF COSTS INCREASES BY $41,000 THEN HALF OF THE PROJECTS MAY NO LONGER BE FEASIBLE. NEXT SLIDE. SPEND A MOMENT TALKING ABOUT MHA OUTCOMES. MHA HAS GENERATED ABOUT $300 MILLION IN FEES SINCE INCEPTION. OVER 30% OF THOSE FEES ARE ABOUT 108 MILLION HAS BEEN FROM PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR LESS IN LOWRISE ZONES OR THE RSL ZONES. AS NOTED IN THE BERK EVALUATION, THERE IS A MARKED TREND OF LOWRISE HOUSING PRODUCTION SHIFTING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO -- SORRY, SHIFTING FROM LR ZONES TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF MHA AND THEN A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER A CHANGE IN ADU REGULATIONS IF THE CITY DOES IMPLEMENT UPZBLOENGS WITH MHA, THAT TREND COULD CONTINUE, WHICH TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON MHA REVENUE. JUST A COUPLE OF NOTES ABOUT MHA OUTCOMES. IT IS SUPPORTED THE PRODUCTION OF 4,700 UNITS SINCE INCEPTION INCLUDING THROUGH THE USE OF LEVERAGE LIKE THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS AND THERE HAVE BEEN 400 INCOME AND RENT RESTRICTED UNITS CREATED THROUGH THE PERFORMANCE OPTION ONLY THREE PROJECTS WITH TEN UNITS OR LESS HAVE CHOSEN THE PERFORMANCE OPTION. THAT HAS LARGELY BEEN AN OPTION WHEN USED SELECTED BY LARGER PROJECTS. MOVING ON TO POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. UNDER STATE LAW AN INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAM CAN ONLY BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE SAME TIME THAT A DEVELOPMENT BENEFIT SUCH AS A DENSITY INCREASE IS CONVEYED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF COUNCIL WANTED TO EXTEND INCLUSIONARY ZONING TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES NOT NOW OR DURING THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION BUT IN COUPLE OF YEERNG, IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO SEW UNLESS ADDITIONAL DENSITY WAS PROVIDED AT THAT TIME. MHA IS NOT A MONOLITHIC POLICY. THERE ARE A LOT OF POLICY LEVERS THAT CAN BE SORT OF PULLED OR A LOT OF DIALS THAT CAN BE TURNED TO CRAFT A PROGRAM. MAJOR CHOICES INCLUDE THE FEE AMOUNT OR THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT, BUT OTHER CHOICES INCLUDE THINGS LIKE IF THERE SHOULD BE AN OWNER OCCUPANCY EXEMPTION FOR SOME PROJECTS OR SOME TYPE OF OWNERS LIKE LEGACY HOMEOWNERS AND TIMING AROUND WHEN THE MHA FEE IS PAID. ONE OPTION FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER COULD BE IMPOSING A SMALL FEE IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES AS JUST AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THERE WOULD BE -- I THINK THE SLIDE SAYS 33,000 NEW UNITS. IT SHOULD BE 36,000 NEW UNITS IN OUR ZONES OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. THAT INFORMATION IS COMING FROM THE ECONORTHWEST REPORT. IF AN MHA FEE OF 5,000 PER UNIT WERE APPLIED AND THOSE UNITS DEVELOPED, IT COULD RESULT IN 165 MILLION IN REVENUE OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. DEVELOPMENT IS VERY CHALLENGING IN MIDDLE HOUSING IS SENSITIVE TO COST INCREASES. SO IT IS A NOTE THAT IF COUNCIL WANTED TO IMPLEMENT MHA BUT NOT HARM HOUSING PRODUCTION, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THAT APPROACH. AND FINALLY, IF COUNCIL WANTED APPLY MHA TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES IT SO DO SO IN THE INTERIM OR PERMANENT LEGISLATION. WAITING FOR THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW COUNCIL TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION. IF COUNCIL DOES INTEND TO CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING MHA IN NR ZONES IN THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION, IT MAY BE HELPFUL IF IT STATED ITS POLICY INTENTION TO DO SO WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE INTERIM LEGISLATION. THANK YOU. >> WE ARE GETTING TOWARDS THE END. TALKING BRIEFLY ABOUT PARKING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS. UNDER CURRENT ZONING ONE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT. WITH A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS. COUNCIL BILL 120969 WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION FOR MIDDLE HOUSING WITHIN A HALF-MILE OF A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. AND THE DEFINITION OF MAJOR TRANSIT STOP COMES FROM HOUSE BILL 1110. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED, SOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND CURB RAMPS WITH DEVELOPMENT. SIDEWALKS -- MOST SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY HAVE BEEN BUILT BY THE DEVELOPERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO DEVELOPMENT OF SIDEWALKS WITH DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IS HOW MOST SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE CITY. SO THE THRESHOLDS FOR WHEN SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED IS TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT HOW THE CITY WILL FILL OUT ITS PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS. UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE AND COUNCIL BILL 120969, IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED FOR TEN OR MORE LOTS OR TEN OR MORE UNITS. IN MOST OTHER ZONES IT'S SIX OR MORE LOTS OR SIX OR MORE DWELLING UNITS. I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL BILL 120969, BUT AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION AND WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHICH WILL BE ACCOMMODATING MORE HOUSING THAN THEY ARE TODAY, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THOSE THRESHOLDS ARE APPROPRIATE. THE ONE CHANGE IN COUNCIL BILL 120969 IS THAT THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSE UNDER CURRENT ZONING AND THAT WOULD BE AMENDED TO SAY ONE UNIT. AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. NEXT STEPS, THERE WILL BE A BRIEFING THE AFTERNOON OF APRIL 30th FROM THE EXECUTIVE ON SOME KEY ISSUES. BEFORE THEN WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE YOUR SORT OF CLOSE TO FILE LIST OF AMENDMENT IDEAS FOR COUNCIL BILL 120969 BY NEXT MONDAY. SO IF YOU WANT CHANGES, PLEASE TALK TO US THIS WEEK OR ON MONDAY. SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT UNDERWAY, MAKE SURE THAT AS MULTIPLE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE CONSIDERING CHANGES WE ARE RECONCILING THEM, THAT WE HAVE LEGAL REVIEW AND CAN PUBLISH THEM ALL IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING ON MAY 7th. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, LISH. , JEN, AND ASHA, FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION. I KNOW IT WAS A LOT FOR US TO ABSORB AND FOR US TO -- IT'S BEEN A LOT. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION. SO THANK YOU ALL. I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK BEHIND THE SCENES. AS WELL WITH OUR COUNCIL OFFICES. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME YOU SPENT WITH US ONE-ON- ONE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. BUT THANK YOU ALL. I WILL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. JUST RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE ZOOM AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND HAPPILY CALL ON YOU. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WILL SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE PRETTY EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ALL. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU SPENT WITH ME. I KNOW I HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS, YOU PROVIDED ANSWERS AND I THINK WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH A COUPLE MORE ROUNDS BEFORE NEXT WEEK. WANTED TO SHARE THAT WHILE I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TODAY FOR THE RECORD, THAT WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND I KNOW IT'S A LOT, ESPECIALLY I KNOW, LISH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT BILL THAT WE ARE TAKING UP TOMORROW IN LAND USE. THERE IS A LOT OF LAND USE STUFF GOING ON THIS WEEK. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO MEET WITH YOU. >> AWESOME. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR TODAY'S PRESENTATION. CERTAINLY WANT TO GET THE BALL ROLLING AND MOVING FORWARD IN THE PROCESS. I HAVE A NICHE QUESTION ON SLIDE 23. IT SAYS IN CURRENT CODE THE SETBACKS FOR ROW HOUSES ARE ZERO FEET IF ABUTTING ANOTHER OR 3.5 FEET OR FIVE FEET IF ABUTTING A SINGLE- FAMILY ZONE. BUT WITH COUNCIL BILL 120969 IT SAYS FIVE FEET. ARE WE ADDING A FIVE-FEET SIDE SETBACK FOR ROW HOUSES, AND IF SO, WHY? HOUSES, AND IF SO, WHY? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION I WILL BE HAPPY TO GET BACK TO YOU ABOUT. >> AWESOME, THANK YOU. AND GOING BACK TO STACKED FLATS, IF YOU CAN REMIND US AGAIN THE MAIN CAUSES FOR STACKED FLAT DEVELOPMENT TO BE UNABLE TO PENCIL, AND DOES THIS CHANGE WITH THE LIKELY PASSAGE OF STATEWIDE CONDO LIABILITY REFORM AND WHAT CAN WE DO AT THE CITY LEVEL TO CHANGE THIS REATING TO COMMERCIAL CODE? >> YEAH. HOPEFULLY, THE STATE'S BILL, WHICH I THINK HAS PASSED THE LEGISLATURE RELATED TO CONDO RELIABILITY REFORM SHOULD HELP. PARTICULARLY, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR PROJECTS WITH 12 OR FEWER UNITS. WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIABILITY PROJECTS AS LARGER PROJECTS. AND SO THAT SHOULD HELP RELIEVE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAD TAKE PROBABLY A FEW YEARS FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO PROCESS THAT AND CHANGE THEIR PROCESSES AND RATES. >> COULD I ADD? I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE CONDO LIABILITY IS THAT THE HOUSE OF THE SENATE HAVE PASSED A BILL BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, SO THERE NEEDS TO BE RECONCILIATION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY BOTH DO OFFER SOME EXEMPTIONS. I AM NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY WHAT FOR UNITS 12 AND UNDER, BUT IN THE SENATE BILL THAT'S -- THE EXEMPTIONS DON'T APPLY IF THE UNITS ARE STACKED. SO WE WILL DO A LITTLE BIT -- I THINK MORE INVESTIGATING. IT HAS MADE PROGRESS AT THE STATE BUT IS NOT YET FULLY PASSED. >> AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT I THINK BUILDING CODE VERSUS RESIDENTIAL CODE AND WE WILL NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU ON WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE THERE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU ALL. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS, CHAIR. THANK YOU. >> AWESOME. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO JUST A QUESTION, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED INTERIM LEGISLATION HAS LESS F.A.R. AND OTHER PROVISIONS, AND I'M JUST WONDERING SORT OF FROM A POLICY POSITION OR EVEN FROM A LEGAL POSITION IS THERE A DRAWBACK TO -- BECAUSE I THINK FOR STACKED FLATS, OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE GREATER F.A.R. THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED IN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION. SO IS THERE A REASON NOT TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION? LET ME ASK, REPHRASE THAT. IF WE DON'T INCLUDE THAT IN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION, ARE WE SOMEHOW PRECLUDING OURSELVES FROM THEN INCLUDING THAT IN THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION? >> NO. THE INTERIM LEGISLATION IS DRAFTED TO BE FAIRLY SPARSE. THE PERMANENT LERZ WILL INCLUDE FEATURES THAT ARE NOT IN THE INTERIM LEGISLATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CORNER STORE PROPOSAL AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE MORE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALLY ALLOWED UNDER THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION PARTICULARLY ON LARGER LOTS AND IN THE LOWEST DENSITY ZONING CATEGORIES. SO THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION IS NOT GOING TO BE BOUND BY YOUR DECISIONS ON THIS BILL. >> TO THE POINT THAT SOMEBODY MADE IN PUBLIC COMMENT, IF WE GO -- IF WE CREATE SOMETHING NOW AND DEVELOPMENT BEGINS UNDER THAT AND WE WERE FOR SOME REASON TO GO BACKWARDS ON PERMANENT LEGISLATION, THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY A PROBLEM? >> I CAN'T PROVIDE YOU LEGAL ADVICE ON THAT QUESTION. >> RIGHT. >> BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE A PROBLEM NECESSARILY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AWESOME. I DON'T SEE -- I'LL PAUSE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS THAT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OBVIOUSLY, I KNOW THAT THE TIMELINE THAT WE'RE UNDER ISN'T THE MOST IDEAL, AND TAKING ON INTERIM LEGISLATION ISN'T THE MOST IDEAL AS WELL TO TURN AROUND AND TAKE ON THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION. BUT THIS IS THE PREDICAMENT THAT WE ARE IN. SO REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE, LIKE I SAID, I WILL SAY IT TO THE END, EVERYONE TAKING THE TIME FOR US TO GET THIS DONE BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO MEET DEADLINES. ALSO I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE AS WELL BEFORE I FORGET, JUST THE NEXT STEPS. I KNOW THAT WAS ON SLIDE 40, BUT I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. SO ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30th, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BRIEFING FROM OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICE REGARDING THE INTERIM LEGISLATION TO HOUSE BILL 1110. THAT AGENDA IS CURRENTLY BEING FORMED. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. WEDNESDAY, MAY 7 WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS POSSIBILITY AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL 120969. YOU HEARD LISH GIVE A DEADLINE BY NEXT MONDAY WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE IN. I KNOW WE HAVE SENT CONCEPTS, BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS. PEOPLE WILL STILL HAVE MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC AND CONVERSATIONS AND TRY TO GET THOSE AMENDMENTS IN SO THOSE COULD BE WORKED WITH CENTRAL STAFF. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING MAY 19. MAY 19, PUBLIC HEARING, STARTS AT 9:30. WE ARE WORKING OUT THE LOGISTICS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT PUBLIC HEARING ISIS SPECIFICALLY ON THE INTERIM LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1110. AGAIN, THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ABOUT THE INTERIM LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1110 ON MAY 19th STARTING AT 9:30. AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE -- WE WILL SEND OUT MORE INFORMATION BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ACCESSIBLE FOR PEOPLE, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. PLEASE STAY POSTED ON US WORKING OUT THOSE LOGISTICS. ALSO THE COMMITTEE VOTES ON MAY 21, THAT IS A WEDNESDAY. SO THE VOTE ON MAY 21 ON A WEDNESDAY. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A FULL COUNCIL VOTE ON MAY 27th, AND THAT IS A TUESDAY. SO IT'S A TIGHT TIMELINE DURING THAT PROCESS, AND THEN AFTER WE FINISH THE INTERIM LEGISLATION AND THEN WE WILL TAKE ON THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE? YOU CAN SAY NO AND I'LL REPEAT MYSELF LOUDER AND LOUDER. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE JOKES IN A SELECT COMMITTEE FOR LAND USE, OKAY? YOU ALL ARE A TOUGH CROWD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO, I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. OH, I SEE COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, AND SO WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR TAKING UP THE COMP PLAN? >> YEAH, SO AFTER -- GREAT QUESTION. AFTER WE PASS THE COUNCIL VOTE, THEN WE TRANSITION TO PHASE ONE, WHICH IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION FOR HOUSE BILL 1110. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M LOOKING AT THE CENTRAL STAFF. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. HOPEFULLY, THIS SUMMER BEFORE BUDGET ACTION AND WE'RE WORKING ON THE SCHEDULE. >> AWESOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, FINAL SOLD TO THE DAIS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WITH THAT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. I THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TO TODAY. SEEING NONE, THIS IS GOING TO CONCLUDE OUR APRIL 16th MEETING ON THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN