Land Use Committee 10/31/2025

Good morning, everyone.

The October 31st, 2025 Special Land Use Committee meeting will come to order.

It is 10.02 a.m.

I'm Mark Solomon, Chair of the Land Use Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council member Rink.

Present.

Chair Solomon.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present.

Okay, thank you.

Council members Rivera and Strauss are excused from today's meeting.

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

Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.

I want to thank you all very much for coming to this spooktacular Halloween Friday special land news committee meeting.

I definitely want to thank our central staff, our folks from SDCI, and the best clerk in the world for being here today.

Yes, applause, applause.

There is Halloween candy on the table over there, so if you need sugar, please help yourselves.

With that, we will now open the public-hybrid comment period.

hybrid public comment.

Yeah, that thing.

Public comment should relate to those appointments on the agenda and within the purview of this committee.

For those who are registered to speak on items six and seven on the agenda related to SEPA thresholds for transportation management plans, we will accept public comment on those items once we get to those and open public hearing.

Now, for those of you who do have time constraints, I'm feeling that the public comment period will be relatively brief so that you will have your opportunity for the public hearing.

Also to be clear, other than the items one through five on the agenda, there will be no votes on items six and seven today.

Just want to make sure everyone is aware of that going forward.

How many speakers do we have signed up for today for public comment?

We currently have zero in-person speakers and two remote speakers.

All right.

We'll go with remote speakers.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Clerk, will you please read the instructions for public comment?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they're 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, and 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.

I'm sorry, just one second.

that person will be Toby Thaler.

And just a reminder, this should relate to the appointments.

If you wish to speak about the SEPA thresholds, please speak about it at the public hearing.

OK.

All right, again, each person has two minutes, not 20 seconds.

So please press star six and begin when you're ready.

Toby, are you here?

Okay.

It doesn't look like Toby's here.

All right.

We will now move on to David Haynes.

Okay.

David.

And it doesn't look like David's here either.

Oh, David Haynes just popped up.

Okay.

All right.

David.

Please press star six.

Hi, David Aynes.

This council's racist agenda to button push politics is used to distract from the fact that you're watering down the integrity of the environmental concerns by forcing people to live next to toxic, loud, obnoxiously mental health crisis causing locations of buses and trains, transit oriented housing, where you're not even considering noise abated walls to give people a reprieve, where self-dealing landlords on the council are perfectly fine with renters living in the worst locations spread throughout the city as long as it doesn't impact city council's rental properties designed to oppress the working class.

Now, council continues with their race war button pushing ignorance to distract from the fact that they're backstabbing everybody with low quality neighborhoods that don't compete with their second mortgage investment designed to drain the lifeblood of the working class.

Tammy Morales is one of the worst, most scorn lived experiences to dump all of her trauma and power mongering into horribly bad policies that are based on button pushing black and brown people of color while hating on the gringos.

And you all are doubling down on this godforsaken policy.

You're going to end up making some of the most egregiously offensive modern third world housing on the side of the transit oriented location.

that have absolutely no noise abatement walls or any consideration for the environment that people are going to be forced to live in.

It's going to be like modern third world inner cities spread throughout.

It's going to drive them to drink themselves to sleep and have the worst mental health crisis we've seen in 21st century, all because you all want to sabotage the integrity of the comprehensive plan and act like you're doing everybody a favor, putting them right next to the bus and train as if they have no excuse to get to work because now they got transportation right outside their door.

We need a more robust, pedestrian-centric, resident-friendly development, not this regurgitation of a car-centric that's...

Thank you, David.

Toby, are you here?

Doesn't sound like it.

Okay.

Chair, that concludes our speakers.

All right.

As that was our last public commenter, the public comment period is now closed.

We will now move on to our first items of business.

Could you please read items one through five into the record?

Agenda items one through five, appointments to 3323 through 3327, appointments to equitable development initiative advisory board of Stephanie Lockman for term to February 28th, 2026, Eric Alipio for a term to February 28th, 2027, and Amira Beasley, Ernesto Oliva, and E.N.

West for a term to February 29th, 2028.

Okay, this is for a briefing discussion and vote.

Thank you.

So do we have OPCD's equity development initiative and the work that representatives bring these nominations forward?

I see, is this Julia?

Julia, we cannot hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Julia Paschuto.

I'm the Funding and Community Investments Manager for the Seattle Equitable Development Initiative, and I'm currently serving as the Acting Director for the program.

I'll share my screen.

Thank you so much for having us, Councilmember Salomon and committee members, and for slotting us in during an exceptionally busy month.

We are here today to speak to those five committee appointments or board appointments and share a little bit more about the board.

so the equitable development initiative advisory board was established to advise and provide recommendations to the city in connection with its equitable development strategies and goals provide guidance and recommendation for the allocation of funds and promote access to opportunity for historically marginalized communities including people of color immigrant communities lgbtqia communities and people with disabilities within Seattle.

The administrative support for the board is provided by the Office of Planning and Community Development staff.

The EDI Advisory Board has 13 members pursuant to Ordinance 126173. All members are subject to City of Seattle confirmation.

The EDI Advisory Board terms are three years and they are staggered, so we don't have everybody coming on and off at the same time.

And no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms.

One unique thing about the EDI Advisory Board is how the original appointments are made.

So three of them are made by City Council, three of them are appointed by the Mayor, and seven of them are appointed by the Advisory Board themselves to retain a sense of ownership by the board and the community and serve as accountability for the program.

We currently have five vacancies, positions one and two are mayor's office appointments, and position four and six are council appointments, position seven is a board appointment, and you can see that three of the positions were vacated due to the term being complete and the two additional ones were vacated due to the capacity of the participants at that time.

And all five of these positions will have an opportunity to renew for a second term of three years from the term expiration date.

We're sharing here the bios for the appointed the folks who have been recommended for appointment.

The first person, and I'm not going to read every single thing about them, but the first person is Stephanie Lachman, who is being recommended for position two.

Stephanie is a loan officer at the People's Solar Energy Fund, a member-directed nonprofit organization that supports community groups with affordable financing, capacity building, and technical assistance to advance community accountable clean energy projects.

And prior to her work at the People's Solar Energy Fund, Stephanie was a small business lender and just brings a wealth of knowledge to the advisory board.

The second person is Amira Beasley, who's being recommended for position one.

Amira is a capital project manager with the King County Wastewater Treatment Division, where she leads large-scale infrastructure projects centered on equity, sustainability, and community impact.

And prior to her current role, Amira managed contracts at the Port of Seattle for equity-focused initiatives, so somebody who will bring experience with capital projects and public funding.

The third person is Ernesto Oliva, who's being recommended for position four.

I believe at the time that we submitted this, since then, Ernesto has changed roles in their work.

So when he applied, he was a coalition manager with over a decade of experience advancing equity through nonprofit sector in Arizona and Oregon, and I believe now works with the Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network.

His work spans housing justice, economic development, community engagement, policy advocacy, and cross-sector partnerships.

And then E.N.

West is being recommended for position 7. proudly hails from the D.C.

metro area by way of Alexandria, Virginia.

Ian deeply believes that we are uninhibited when we know our power and is committed to co-creating in a world.

I got cut off there.

Ian is a proud South End resident and loves living in Columbia City with their partner, currently enrolled in barber school with a dream of using hair work as care work in mutual aid efforts around the city.

and they have been instrumental in working with faith institutions who are working to develop affordable housing and their vacant land.

And then the last person is Eric Alipio, who is being recommended for position six.

Eric is a Navajo and Filipino graduate student pursuing a Master of Landscape Architecture at the University of Washington.

Since moving to Seattle in 2016, Eric has been deeply influenced by the region's longstanding traditions of civic activism and his own cultural heritage, shaping his commitment to centering historically marginalized voices in the built environment.

Eric has been involved with the King County Comprehensive Plan as part of the Equity Work Group and co-developing anti-displacement policies through the city's equitable transit-oriented development.

strategy and implementation plan.

We are really excited to be expanding our board or pointing folks to our board to fill up the vacant positions.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have about the board or about the candidates.

All right, thank you very much.

Colleagues, fellow committee members, any questions or comments for our presenter regarding these appointees?

Okay.

All right, seeing none, I move the committee recommend the confirmation of appointments 3323 through 3327. Is there a second?

All right, it has been moved and seconded.

Any further comments from the committee?

Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Royce?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and zero opposed.

Great.

The committee recommendation to confirm appointments 3323 through 3327 will be sent to the November 12th City Council meeting.

Thank you very much.

All right, we will now move on to item six on the agenda.

Clerk, please read item six into the record.

Agenda item six, Council Bill 121093, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, revising environmental review, thresholds and related provisions addressing transportation related requirements and archeological and cultural resource preservation requirements, amending various chapters of the SMC.

All right, great.

Again, this item is for a briefing, discussion and a public hearing.

This legislation updates the State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA thresholds for environmental review and other provisions related to land use permitting transportation and archaeological and cultural resource preservation.

As presiding officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121093 related to amending the city's subdivision regulations.

But how many speakers are signed up for the public hearing on 121093?

We have four in-person and one remote.

All right.

Each person will have two minutes.

So we will call you up in the order in which you have signed up.

We will proceed with the in-person commenters first and then go to our remote commenter.

So, and again, each person will have two minutes.

Do we really need to read the instructions for you again or y'all got it?

We do.

You do need to?

Yeah.

Okay, right, right.

I know you know it.

I have to read it.

Speakers will be called an order in which the registered public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of the public hearing.

The same public comment rules applied to this public hearing.

Ten-second chime will be your notice that it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment related to Council Bill 1210930 is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

Thank you, so please begin.

Thank you and thank you for helping us celebrate Halloween.

Yeah, good morning.

So I'm Sandy Shetler.

I'm commenting on 121093. Please ask hard questions and don't allow this bill to pass out of committee.

Building abundant housing and growing our economy does not need to go together with degrading the environment that we depend on.

Yesterday, I met with Atlanta's urban forestry leaders.

Atlanta has nearly 50% tree canopy and they're growing it, even as they plan for more housing and jobs for two million people expected to move to their metro region by 2050. They're preparing for growth with thoughtful policies.

For example, for every eight new paved parking spots added to any commercial or residential project, one large shade tree with space to grow is required.

In contrast, the bill before you today more than doubles the number of parking spaces exempt from environmental review from 40 to 90. It doubles the amount of soil that can be scraped from a site from 500 to 1,000 cubic yards, filling a dump truck 100 times.

Instead of being the emerald green city, Seattle could become known as the greenwashing city.

Please plan to vote no, and thank you so much.

Next up, we have Dave Gloger.

Of course.

Thank you, Dave.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Dave Gloger, and I live in District 5. I have to say I'm shocked that Council Bill 121093 would consider the EIS for the One Seattle Plan to be any kind of environmental standard.

This EIS is already out of date.

It was written before the number of housing units covered by the one Seattle plan was more than doubled, effectively rendering it invalid.

Yet it's supposed to be the standard for the next 20 years.

The EIS does not mention the killer whales of Puget Sound.

How many more orca deaths do we need to read about, as we see in the paper, before we take some action?

We are not the only intelligent beings on this planet but ignoring the whales would indicate that we're not so intelligent.

The EIS also states for Green Lake that there is no water quality impairment.

However, the Washington State Department of Ecology states that Green Lake has a level five water quality impairment.

This is due to harmful algae blooms, phosphorus in the water, and organic chemicals in fish tissues like pesticides and PCBs.

How did the people that did the EIS miss this vital data when it's available on the website for a state agency?

And the EIS also states that the current stormwater runoff into Seattle streams is resulting in 86% mortality of coho salmon.

But it doesn't list any ways that we can increase the density, how by increasing the density will affect this.

So how can we have an EIS that claims to be our standard, but it doesn't even say how to maintain our standards or improve our impacts on whales and fish.

The other day, there was a claim that Seattle was a progressive city, which does mean caring about the environment.

Don't give our environmental protections away with Council Bill 121093 as it is currently written.

Fix it so we can adjust our environmental reviews as times change.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Next up, we have Martha Brown.

Hello.

My name is Martha Brown, and I am a resident in District 4. And I'm here to comment on 121093. And I'm urging that the council not pass this without the following considerations.

Providing analysis of application of SEPA for impervious surfaces increases, the comp plan did not adequately address this.

also providing analysis of the ability of SDCI and other regulatory agencies to enforce equivalent protections as SEPA.

SDCI cannot enforce their current violations.

protecting public environmental input, continue SEPA until other environmental regulations updates are completed to ensure adequate protections for orcas, salmon, water, humans, trees, and our green spaces, consulting local tribes to develop an adequate EIS for culturally modified trees and stormwater impacts before removing SEPA review, Removing the 90 space parking lots and 30,000 square foot retail exemptions to align with RCW 4321C-2993.

Restoring the 50% floor area housing backup from just one unit of housing in the proposed bill.

aligning the exemption threshold to the 120,000 housing units covered by the Comp Plan EIS, increasing the housing units after the EIS was completed and validates it.

Thank you very much and thanks for the Halloween candy.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Thank you, Jennifer.

So our 74 native critically endangered southern resident orca babies are dying at high rates.

Scientists keep saying we need to try something massively different right away, or they will go extinct.

NOAA's SRKW recovery plan was written in 2008, yet Seattle has ignored the recommendations, not just on Halloween.

Seattle uses Orcas for tourism advertising, yet this bill strips environmental protections for building the hard surfaces that increase one of their top threats.

When it rains, pollutants are washed the quickest off of hard surfaces down storm drains, like man-made streams into waterways, which means everywhere there's a storm drain, it is a riparian corridor, watershed.

SB 5412 is not mandatory.

Seattle's response with 121093 leaves enforcement with agencies like SDCI, who have largely failed to enforce a tree code.

I am frightened to see this level of environmental rollbacks in a so-called progressive city.

And you look at the whereas section at the bottom of page one of the bill.

It incorrectly states the com plan EIS was adequate when it doesn't meet.

lots of the RCW 4321C 230C.

So please do not consider this bill without accessing the actual impacts.

Please analyze the hard surface and stormwater impacts on endangered species, the capacity of overburden agencies to take on more enforcement, Please remove the anomalous 30,000 square foot retail allowance, which is not found in SB 5412 at all.

Remove the reduction in housing incentives that reduces the number of housing units required to get this exemption from 50% floor area down to only one unit.

It also doubles the parking lot size from 40 to 90 spaces.

would love if you get rid of that, aligned with the actual 120,000 housing units actually studied in the EIS to trigger this.

What's good for the ORCAS is good for us.

Thank you.

That is our last in-person commenter.

We do have one remote commenter, and that is Toby Thaler.

Toby, are you here?

Toby does not appear to be present.

We will have a second public hearing after this presentation.

Okay.

And the chair's privilege to just ask, are any of you here for the public hearing regarding the second item or item seven on the agenda?

Okay.

All right, I just wanted to make sure that if you were here to offer commentary or during the public hearing for the second item on the agenda, that you had time to do so, given that some of you have some time constraints.

So if you're not here to comment on that one, then we'll proceed with the presentation from our folks from SDCI regarding item six on the agenda.

So please introduce yourselves for the record and begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Chair Solomon.

First, I'd like to thank you all for holding this during what I know is a very busy budget time.

This chair in particular has done a marvelous job in managing all of the competing regulations, so we do want to say thank you for that.

I'll introduce myself.

I'm the policy director at SDCI.

I work with my colleagues who I'll let them introduce themselves.

I just wanted to say a few brief things about SEPA because although this is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation that is enacting stuff that we've been directed by the state to consider.

It can be confusing.

Just as a way of background, the original intent of CEPA was as a backstop to regulations.

Since the 1970s, our local regulations have gotten increasingly complex, increasingly integrated with state law and federal law, and they have over time proven themselves to be the more adequate and effective way of regulating and mitigating environmental impacts.

such that we see the need for SEPA over time has dropped down, as evidenced by the number of reviews that have been able to successfully pass permitting very limited numbers of appeals.

I can't remember the last time a SEPA decision was actually overturned.

There have been some that have been remanded, and that's part of the process.

Ultimately, the purpose of SEPA as a backstop has been something that has shifted.

And as it's shifted to the need being at a higher threshold of development, SDCI is responding as the city was directed to consider by the state.

So in essence, this package is really to align us with not just a practice that we've been engaged in since 2023 when the state passed 5412, which really changed the exemption levels, but to right-size the regulations in our codes or in our SEPA ordinance with an understanding that our codes are voluminous and adequate to address most environmental impacts and that SEPA is needed less and less.

So with that, I'll turn to my colleagues and let them speak.

Hi, I'm Gordon Clowers with SDCI.

Sharing the presentation.

There it is.

Okay, so thank you for the opportunity to present the legislation here on SEPA threshold updates, and I'll just describe a few basic things about this to start out with, and then we'll share a number of our observations and proposals.

SEPA stands for the State Environmental Policy Act.

state laws since the early 1970s.

The SEPA rules as used by Seattle often require an analysis of whether development will generate significant adverse impacts or not.

And then the SEPA thresholds are the, they define the line between projects that do require the SEPA review and projects that do not require the SEPA review.

So we're reconsidering that.

And as David has said, the range of city laws that have been added to over the past 40 years have helped to cover a lot of the bases for environmental impact protection, things like the Environmental Critical Areas Ordinance and so on, such that we have less reliance on SEPA review than we have had in the past.

So, here we go.

The outline of our discussion today will be first to talk about some of the objectives of the legislation and key findings and then describe the range of proposed changes to the thresholds and then how these relate to growth estimates of the comprehensive plan and cover other details about archaeological resources and transportation regulation updates, those latter two, some things that are requested by the state for us to review as part of this process.

And so the objectives of the legislation here really relate to the They respond to state guidance that's evolving quickly on supporting housing and supporting streamlining and permitting and transit-oriented development.

This goes along with the city's comprehensive plan update where we have been seeking to establish a new pattern for the next 20 years of growth.

So overall, we're trying to align the SEPA regulations and related provisions with the intent of the comprehensive plan as well as recent state legislation.

You know, that is...

and this is a really good opportunity to support faster housing production, streamlining of the permit processes, and middle housing, affordable housing.

We can do that by reducing the number of times which an environmental review required for new housing development.

That is a step where our staff otherwise have to analyze the potential for the significant adverse impacts.

It takes time, it adds some risk to the permit review timeframe.

So this is a really important opportunity to make some tangible progress on these efforts and all of these goals.

Also noted here is that we look to support easier permitting for small businesses.

There are certain kinds of changes that a small business will come in looking for, changing of use within existing structure.

That can be caught up in a SEPA review and we look to ease that, ease those rules so that we can more often just grant the small business improvement without a CPA review and much quicker.

So the big concept here for our changes is to address the residential development, support residential development with easier permitting, and to relate it to the citywide perspective, citywide approach to comprehensive planning that we are pursuing now and to reorient the SEPA thresholds from being on a center by center or urban village by urban village basis to being set at citywide levels that apply citywide for both residential and commercial uses.

And the Along with that, we would be able to monitor growth over the time that comprehensive plan is in effect and gauge how much growth has happened and that will inform the citywide application of the higher SEPA thresholds.

The big move that we're making here is to propose that all development that includes residential uses, including mixed-use development, would be exempt from ZIPA review as long as the city is still growing and has not met the citywide growth target.

So that is a change from our current system that has had zone by zone or center by center defined thresholds.

And we would also be updating the non-residential use thresholds to the highest levels that are accommodated by the state.

Those are in the that the state laws called the WAC, the CEPA rules, that allow us to raise the thresholds higher than they are today in the city of Seattle up to a certain level, and we're proposing to go to the highest levels.

and just as an overview here mentioning again that we're looking at certain topics related to archaeological resources bringing those up to match state law and also updating certain transportation related code items.

So the particulars on the non-residential SEPA thresholds are to have a maximum SEPA threshold of 30,000 square feet for retail uses.

Below that size we would not need SEPA review, but above that size we would.

and for other non-retail, non-residential uses such as industrial uses or so on, that limit would go up to 65,000 square feet.

And other listed changes here are ones that the state also had raised in the past to higher maximums than we currently have.

So a standalone parking lot being raised, I believe it was from 50 to 90 spaces.

not needing SIPA review and the other adjusting of grading minimums and so on.

So as I had mentioned, The citywide proposal, citywide SEPA threshold setting would allow us to replace the infill targets.

In the past, we have defined center by center, village by village, and just monitor on a citywide basis.

If we do meet the citywide growth targets within the next 20 years, at that point, we would need to fall back to a lower SEPA review level.

200 dwelling units, for example, we have had in downtown and other major urban centers under the past comp plan.

So that is a level at which we are exempting SEPA review altogether in downtown up until recently, and we had been seeing not a lot of SEPA mitigation being imposed on development up to that size.

So the archeological resource topic, the state asked us to, asked all jurisdictions considering these changes to review their archeological resource, cultural resource regulations and policies and practices.

We have taken an effort to update our rules and regulations to fit with the state law as it is today.

that retains a lot of the early work for assessing whether there are cultural resources or archaeological resources likely to be present in an area and also for grading permits in particular.

If they're occurring in certain areas, we've added a little bit more information to explore that topic if they're in those areas.

and state law applies today and it still would with stop work orders and things of that nature if cultural resources, archaeological resources are found on a given site.

If we suspect those are present as well, we can have more upfront pre-grading sorts of investigations.

The area that we have added those protections to is called the meanderline buffer area.

This is the most interesting part of the meanderline buffer map, but primarily in the Duwamish River vicinity here or Soto and West Marginal Way, East Marginal Way.

The area in purple shows the prior course of the Duwamish River.

And we know that there was a lot of occupation by Duwamish indigenous people in the past along the Duwamish River.

So these are areas that have some elevated potential for these resources.

And the proposed grading regulation enhancements would allow for that to be considered if a project comes along in those areas.

I can pause here and see if you have any questions about what we've covered so far.

Actually, Mr. Chair, I do have a question.

Yes, Councilmember Juarez.

Thank you, Chair.

Just briefly, first of all, you've got to put page numbers on your slides, Guy.

Drives me crazy when I can't figure out where we're at.

So going back to the archaeological protection and then this piece and the Duwamish and some other issues that we've had with culturally modified trees, etc.

So does the city code currently have tribal notification and discussion?

Because I know SEPA does, obviously, or state law under the state, or Allison Brooks, her office for the state.

So is the city, do they currently have that and is that in the works?

We do have that practice and it's something that we're looking to reinforce and make sure that we are, you know, doing it more completely As I understand it as well Yes, we do contact the state Allison Brooks at the Department of Archaeological Historic Preservation.

The people engaged in that research work can tap a number of literature sources as well as knowledge from that department or any other contacts with tribes and so on that should be happening as appropriate.

As you work with the city attorney's office and you track with the state law, I think we have to have the language there for travel notification and consultation.

Because that's required under federal and state law.

And I know you look at the state.

It isn't enough to just look at the historic and literature because the people that write that it's not really their history.

It's a different narrative.

And we've come up against this many times.

We have to take the perspective from the tribes all have archaeological and cultural resource officers.

Every tribe I know in the Sound has cultural resource officers.

So I'm hoping when you work with the city attorney's office and you track with the state law, which is pretty good because they track with the federal law.

And we know that we have Muckleshoot, Suquamish, Snoqualmie.

We've got all kinds of tribal folk and obviously indigenous cultures and cultural resource officers.

So I'm sure this is obviously gonna come back at some point for a vote.

So I'll be tracking this at least for the next year.

So thank you.

And thank you, Chair.

Yeah, thank you.

And we did notify those tribes for part of this proposal that had a CIPA review recently.

We did receive comments from a couple of them, so thanks.

Thank you.

Council Member Rink, do you have any questions at this time?

All right.

Chair, thank you.

All right.

So, again, proceed.

Okay.

A little tremble with the...

There we go.

Almost at it.

There we go.

Okay, so as part of the effort here, the state also asked us to look at transportation codes and practices, and the goal is to ensure that our codes provide that kind of environmental protection and good provide for good transportation outcomes.

And so we did review the regulations we have on a couple of impact-related matters and are proposing some clarification, simplification of it.

One of the topics, they have two topics here.

One is transportation management plans.

It is one of the impact reducing methods contained in the comprehensive plan and we are continuing a long program here that buildings of a certain size are required to have a TMP plan that requires occupants to encourage non-single occupant vehicle travel, bus, light rail, carpool, bicycles, and so on, and that that plan is monitored by SDOT over time and the performance and so on.

the building owners as well as the building occupants are expected to participate in this.

It's a good program and very actively managed by SDOT.

What we're doing here is to rephrase the minimum thresholds for having a TMP.

Today they're quite hard to understand because they're described in terms of a building that has 50 PM peak hour trips or something of that nature.

No one knows whether they need a TMP or not.

even during the time the permit's being reviewed.

So we're rephrasing that for minimum sizes of development, and that should be a lot easier to follow.

We're also consolidating those into one section of the land use code.

Zones like Seattle Mixed and Downtown and Northgate are the the kinds of zones that have these minimum TMP requirements in the code so That should work a lot better Construction management plans are another subject that SDOT actively manages And the goal there is to Have SDOT to help the applicants to plan their access of equipment to certain times of the day, coordinate logistics between multiple projects with the goal of maintaining good traffic flows on nearby streets and pedestrian safety and so on.

That has been a very beneficial effort to, you know, especially in special cases when projects may otherwise block streets too much, SDOT can help.

So, This has been a common SEPA mitigation measure that we have had and most projects of any large size we tell them to go work with SDOT on a CMP and that's we have missed that in the last 10 years but we propose to have to require it for certain size buildings and that would be larger than 25 unit residential buildings or greater than 25,000 square foot non-residential buildings.

So that's just a way to make sure our codes cover this topic well.

And just one last item to note, part of the state laws actually asked and required jurisdictions to consult with WSDOT about our project referral practices so that WSDOT has good notice and can comment on the impacts of development on their facilities, including I-5, but also places like Aurora Avenue.

So we have an OPCD and our department met with WSDOT two times to talk about this and we just need to check and refresh our referral practices for projects to WSDOT and we can take care of that without any code change, just administrative practices.

You know, we're following the topics that are raised in the state law in order to pass the SEPA threshold increases.

And, you know, we think that we have covered the basis here.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Members of the committee, any questions or comments for our presenters?

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

So let me say two things.

So, and this is citywide, but particularly in D5, we have three state highways.

We have 522, 523 in Aurora.

And then of course we have I-5 that runs through Seattle.

This is the problem that we continually have with WSDOT in streamlining communication to cleaning up encampments on I-5 and on state highways.

So are you telling me that you guys are going to streamline this so we don't have to, like, I'm just thinking of all the times that we got the runaround through SDCI and the state to clean up encampments and tents underneath the bridges, or we'd go to the city and the city says it's not our property.

We have to go to the state.

It just turned into this between SDOT, WASH, SDCI.

We couldn't get these folks into housing.

We couldn't get the money to get it cleaned up.

We finally did, I believe, under Mayor Durkan and Governor Inslee.

I think we got like 70 million.

We didn't get it.

something like 50 or 60 million was set aside to clean.

And it didn't all come to the city, which we were hoping it would.

So can you help me understand a little bit more how you envision to have a more streamlined process so the city of Seattle can work with SDCI and WSDOT to clean up, not just encampments and graffiti, but the other issues that we see along state highways.

Yeah, let me see if I can tackle that.

The changes that we're talking about within this ordinance are really focused on making sure that when it comes to a project review, we're doing the right consultation.

They want a heads up from us.

But I acknowledge the issue that you raised and have had similar experiences myself in trying to understand who owns what, who's the right contact.

That's a problem set that probably lies outside of something SDCI controls directly, but I want to go back and do some more research and get back to your office directly on what we understand about that problem.

The streamlining of communication we're talking about is really that which is required under law when a project is proposed and what you're describing is kind of a larger issue for sure, but how we could help illuminate how that works and if there's an opportunity, I don't know, but I'd like to be able to get back to your office with some more specifics.

Well, I'm saying that this is, yes, I understand project review, but I'm saying what we're dealing with is more emergent with people and tents and all the other stuff.

I just want a system where we can work with SDCI and SDOT to make sure we get it done and what we look at as far as assistance.

So this is where I get a little frustrated, the silo effect.

I want SDCI to be working with SDOT and WSDOT.

I would love one person to walk us through with constituents in groups who house our homeless neighbors how we get that and how we clean those things up, instead of just hearing, that's state property, and we only do stuff when it comes to projects.

I think that's what my frustration is.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

And the point is well taken, and maybe it's a discussion outside of this, but I've heard, do you know what this is?

This is the Seattle salute, right?

It's somebody else's issue to deal with.

And, you know, so often we get that, you know, and I know I've dealt with this before.

Oh, no, that's Parks.

Oh, no, that's Washtock.

Nope.

Oh, that's S-Doc.

Oh, that's privately owned.

We just wanted taken care of, right?

So again, probably discussion outside of this committee, but definitely an important one.

I appreciate Council Member Roars for bringing that up.

Council Member Rink.

Thank you chair and I wanted to build on this discussion one to emphasize the point of the importance of cooperation between different governmental entities within our own within the city of Seattle but also across different governments while also adding to a bit of the discussion just about specifically encampment resolution on state right of ways just to if I may fill in some of the the blanks my colleague Councilmember Juarez has just specifically on how that work has been going and where we've hit kind of a standstill Under Governor Inslee, he established the State Right of Way Initiative, and KCRHA applied for that money and secured it, and the program has been operated through PDA and LEED, and there were a number of successful encampment resolutions on state right of ways that run through Seattle, and I know a lot of good partnership had gone into working with different departments within the city, and KCRHA, I mean, I think the most poignant example from the program is the clearing of the Dearborn encampment and just the major change, of course, that came with that.

What I wanted to make sure just to add to the discussion and committee today, there was a cut to the program.

This was a state-funded program, and I joined a number of leaders, county, city, to try and push for the state legislature to fully fund the program so we can continue to clear encampments and state right-of-ways.

we were not successful in that effort.

So right now there was no new money this year to do additional encampment resolutions, but rather just enough money to keep folks who have been housed through that program remain housed.

And so as we're taking up the state legislative agenda this year, we'd love partnership to see how we can restore funding for that program.

But again, want to hone in on this point that would love to see more cooperation between different governments in this area, particularly on this matter.

Thank you for indulging me, Chair.

I just wanted to add to the conversation and fill in some of the blanks here as it relates to encampment resolution on state right-of-way.

Thank you, Council Member Reing.

So again, for our SDCI representatives, anything further you want to add regarding the SEPA threshold legislation that we need to know about?

I can't think of anything that you haven't already sort of gotten a full rundown on.

Again, I would just reiterate that for the most part, the perspective that I was trying to bring at the beginning that this is really rightsizing something that we've had to recognize over time.

Our regulations are the better place.

The TMP example that Gordon referred to is really this is a better way with stronger enforcement when it's nested in the code rather than relying on a backstop process that sometimes applies and relies on an appeal.

So we're hopeful that this can move forward.

So thank you for your time today.

Okay, well, thank you.

Appreciate your time.

And again, this was the purpose of this presentation is for our information, for briefing and discussion, having the public hearing about that.

No vote is gonna be taken at this time.

The vote on this legislation will happen under my successor's watch.

So we'll just say it that way.

Thank you very much.

Moving on, please read item seven into the agenda.

Agenda item seven, information item, CEPA threshold exemption transportation management plan legislation.

Okay, so this legislation will work alongside with Council Bill 121093 and consists of code amendments related to transportation impact analysis, transportation management programs, and construction management construction management plan topics.

As presiding officer, I am now opening the public hearing on SEPA threshold exemption transportation management plan legislation.

Clerk, how many speakers have signed up for this public hearing?

We have one in person and one remote.

All right.

Each speaker will get two minutes.

Clerk, can you please read the instructions regarding public comment?

Speakers will be called in the order registered.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10-second chime will be your notice that it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment related to the SEPA threshold exemption transportation management plan legislation is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

We will start with the in-person speaker and that is...

Chilimboy?

Yeah, get close to the mic, either one.

Is it better?

Yes, thank you.

Anyone that says my name correctly the first time, I need to have a little Academy Award for everyone that gets that.

It is Jalimboy, Washington.

And my statement is this.

I try to break things down very simply.

Who owns the property?

who decides, who is the overall person that goes, hey, you can't do this on my property because we pay for the property.

This is, I'm thinking of like as a parent, you're not going to do anything on this property.

Now if you want to do it on this property, it's going to be outside this house.

Now, think about that.

If I pay for it, this is what my responsibility is.

If you pay for it, OK, just don't do anything illegal on it.

Now, who owns the property?

Who is responsible for running the property?

If I pay for it and I'm making the rules, well, guess what?

I'm responsible for doing everything under that umbrella, right?

Now, who owns the property?

State, if we're talking about highways.

Who is responsible for the upkeep of that?

Well, state, et cetera, et cetera.

Hopefully that makes more sense, even not thinking as a parent.

I shall I digress and thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Toby Thaler.

Hello.

Excuse me.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Toby Thaler.

I am a long experienced person with SEPA and its application.

It is my opinion that the city's FIPA reviews of GMA and the relationship require actions that the city has been largely ineffective.

The city's FIPA reviews are flawed in three major ways.

One, proposals don't adequately put non-project actions in the proper framework.

Implement is ever conducted.

Two, the likely significant adverse impacts are often inadequately assessed.

Three, without adequate monitoring of the successes and failures of past mitigation measures, it is impossible for the city to enact and implement effective mitigation measures going forward.

There is a solution.

I recommend that you use your power in the budget process to adopt a statement of legislative intent to direct the law department to work with the executive to conduct a thorough review of the city's SEPA and GMA compliance processes and propose administrative and procedural improvements.

Under the current structure there is far too too much regulatory capture by economic interests.

Please fix the city's SEPA process.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Toby.

That concludes our speakers.

Okay.

As that was our last speaker for the public hearing.

Public hearing is now closed.

And our SDCI representatives are still with us.

So as we move into the section again, if you could introduce yourselves with the records and please begin when you are ready.

I'll be briefer this time.

I'm Dave VanSkyke, the policy director and my colleague Gordon Klawish are going to be presenting this apparently this legislation which pairs with the prior SEPA update.

Yes, thank you.

I actually presented part of the subject matter a few minutes ago, but we can cover that again as well as this other piece here to start with.

For In relation to setting the SEPA thresholds, one of the tasks indicated by the state is to take stock of whether there could be impacts that occur for the exempted range of projects.

So a smaller project, does it still warrant having an impact analysis of any kind?

Well, ten years ago, if not more, we introduced the concept of a non-SEPA transportation impact study.

that would be required for projects of a certain size that might have some local traffic impacts and should be studied.

I think that's been fairly rarely required because the project sizes are not happening that much where it's required.

So with this new comprehensive plan that is reorienting the citywide planning and expected housing growth and so on pattern across the city.

We are updating this non-SEPA transportation impact study when it is required.

And we are proposing that it would happen for non-residential projects that are 40,000 square feet or greater that would be occurring in places outside of our growth centers.

So perhaps a place like Interbay, 15th Avenue, or Sandpoint Way.

If a certain size project comes along, there could be a traffic impact, and perhaps we should require a traffic study for that.

That's outside of the realm of SEPA review, have written into the code the ability to require any mitigation that could result from that.

So this is, in a way, simplifying this study to really to apply to places where the project impacts might be large enough to warrant some mitigation.

And because we have such an emphasis on supporting transit-oriented growth and centers and growth in our major centers.

We don't believe that we have a need for this study, but that we can exempt the larger projects from SEPA going forward.

And The part of the TMP, I think both parts of the TMP work here and the CMP proposal are both in this separate legislation.

We connected a CPRA review for this proposal and it again sort of, it changes more code to consolidate it in one place in the code and then make it consistent in the zones where it's required, Seattle mixed, downtown and Northgate.

zones and the TMP language would make it much easier for applicants to understand if they need a TMP or not.

They can factor that into their work during or after the permit process.

And then CMPs Since this is such a good practice for and effective in ensuring good protection of road flow and safety in places where projects are happening, we propose this at a new threshold of project size so that we get that CMP coordination with SDOT where it's needed.

All right, thank you for that.

Colleagues, committee members, any comments or questions for our presenters on this particular piece of legislation?

Council Member Rink.

Thank you chair and thank you for this presentation today.

Just turning in on one point, what is the goal we're trying to achieve by exempting standalone parking lots up to 90 spaces?

While exemptions for housing and commercial spaces make intuitive sense as we need more housing and denser housing, I see no need for the construction of additional standalone parking lots and if anything that would cause direct harm to our environment.

So could you please elaborate on this policy choice?

Yeah, I can speak to that.

The shift in the number from 40 to 90 represents sort of the highest number that the state considered reasonable for triggering SEPA for parking.

The notion that it's only standalone parking lots I think is not entirely correct in that parking in and of itself can be a trigger for SEPA.

So you could have a use, let's say, a multifamily development that under our prior rules we said, well, the residential may be exempt, but the parking, because it's associated, makes the project not exempt.

So it would be triggering SEPA just for that difference in parking.

So the notion is not to ease SEPA review for standalone parking lots.

I mean, there could be good reasons to do that, but that's not the intent here.

Okay.

Okay.

I might have some follow-up on this point, but thank you for that answer.

And those are all the questions I have right now, Chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for Council Member Rank.

Council Member Ruiz, any questions or comments from you?

I am good.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

I don't have any comments or questions for you all either.

So, fly, be free.

So I do thank you very much for your time today and for the information.

Again, this item is not up for a vote today.

The vote will be taken at a later time, probably before the end of the year.

That depends on the incoming land use share.

So again, thank you very much for your time here and for your presentation.

Thank you.

We have reached the end of our agenda.

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

Councilmember Rink.

There we are.

Chair, I wanted to take a personal point of privilege, since I believe today is your last time chairing Land Use Committee.

I wanted to thank you for your chairmanship, and Thaddeus also, our Clerk of the Committee.

Thank you both for your work.

Under your leadership and support, I think we've advanced really important legislation.

You've certainly guided us through spicy policy debates, and so I want to thank you for your hard work, for your partnership, and your service to the body.

You are so appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I very much appreciate that.

Yes, this is the last committee I will be chairing.

At least for now.

Yeah, I don't think it is.

I think you got a few more left in you.

I don't think you're done.

Yeah, I'm not buying it, so.

Well, thank you Councilman for it.

You got me all choked up here, Jesus, okay.

I do want to thank everyone for the opportunity to be chair of this committee.

And I want to thank central staff.

I want to thank the clerk.

When you're chair of the land use committee and you have a land use lawyer as your policy guy, I mean, come on, that's a win, really.

So coming into this position, I knew nothing about land use.

Now, having been here for a while, I still know nothing about land use, but just enough to be dangerous.

And a lot of what we've been able to do, I do credit the central staff and the clerk and my staff for us to be able to advance as many things as we have in the time that we've been here.

So again, thank you very much.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you for the honor and thank you for your trust.

And with that, it is 11-14 and this special committee meeting of the Land Use Committee will now stand adjourned.

Thank you everyone.

Enjoy the rest of your day.