Land Use Committee Special Meeting 7/6/23

Everyone.

The July 6 2023 meeting of the land use committee will come to order is 9.30 AM.

I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee Councilmember Morales will need to leave committee early today.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Mosqueda.

Councilmember Nelson.

Present.

Councilmember Peterson.

Present.

Vice Chair Morales.

Here.

Strouse present for present.

Thank you.

I'm present council member Strauss.

This is council member Mosqueda.

Clerk will you be present?

Thank you.

Uh, we have nine items on the agenda today.

Um, we'll speak to these items first and then I'll give everyone a bit of an overview of the land use committee to date and moving forward.

Uh, so the items on today's agenda are council bill 120592. Briefing, discussion, public hearing, and possible vote on updating regulations for rooftops in Pioneer Square.

Informational item 2286, briefing, discussion, public hearing on moratorium on replacement of floating on water residences.

A number of appointments for the Planning Commission and Equitable Development Initiative and Urban Forestry Commission.

So we have appointment of Janelle Hicks, Andrew Dannenberg, and Monica Sherma to the Planning Commission, as well as Diana Quintana-Saladas, as well as Nicholas Whipple.

and Alicia Kellogg to Urban Forestry Commission and then we have a resolution 32097 a briefing discussion on resolution for transportation impacts in industrial maritime zones.

Before we begin if there is no objection I'm going to amend the agenda to hear item two first and item one second so that we can put the floating on water residence public hearing first.

So if there's no objection I am going to Move this.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Just as an overview for the land use committee to date, for reference, this marks our 18th land use committee so far this year.

Typically a land use committee would hold a total of 17 meetings in one year, which means we're just over halfway through the year and we've already exceeded the standard number of meetings.

And this was due to additional meetings to pass the tree protection ordinance, as well as the maritime and industrial zoning changes We do have two meetings scheduled in September.

There's a special meeting and the regularly scheduled meeting.

And we have two meetings scheduled in December.

Again, a regularly scheduled and a special meeting.

So we have four more meetings this year.

What we will be taking up later on in the year, we did not get to a couple of the items that we had really desired to address this year, which was design review changes.

We had expected that the design review sly and report would have been delivered to us in January, it was then pushed back to March.

That did not give us the time needed to take up a robust plan, a robust schedule of outreach engagement under analysis to make changes so that is.

Colleagues will be, I'm sure the report will be sent out shortly.

We also have additional updates to the tree protection ordinance that we would like to make in a resolution and so we will have that in either September or December.

We will be reaching out to the Urban Forestry Commission and other stakeholders to include what is desired in that resolution that will set out the framework for making updates to the Tree Protection Ordinance.

This is the same format that we took five years ago, which led us on the path to passing the Tree Protection Ordinance right now.

We had a resolution in 2019 That set forward the pathway, which is why, which is how we pass the tree protection ordinance now.

This year, so we are going to mirror that same format by way of resolution to lay out the pathway into making updates.

We, in September, we, as long as the schedule allows it, we will be taking up zoning changes for the downtown area as part of the Mayor's Downtown Activation Plan.

And then in December, we will be taking up any cleanup legislation from the year.

As well, Council Member Peterson has requested that we take up transportation impact fees in September.

And so we have time held there.

For the public's awareness, with just two meetings in September, The calendar is already full.

Council Member Morales, I know that you have requested time on the calendar for your bill.

I'm happy to follow up with you about that offline.

I have committed that you will have time for that bill.

I'm just sharing all of this information with the public because while it seems like there's a lot of time for a lot of things, the schedule's already packed.

With that, let's get to today.

At this time, I'm gonna open the remote public comment period for items on today's agenda.

We have two public hearings today as well.

So I'm gonna play the video once, which is the main message here is please be kind and please speak to the item on the agenda.

And civility is an important thing in our community and something that I promote daily.

So we will play the video once, and then if you are here to speak on a public hearing, please do not use the public comment period.

So we have public comment for rooftops.

No, does rooftop, clerk, does rooftops have a public hearing?

Yes, so the only items that are in public comment today are the transportation impact, the transportation industrial transportation resolution, excuse me, mouthful there, and the appointments.

If you are here to speak on floating on water residences or to rooftops, there's a public hearing set aside for that.

Without further ado, clerk, will you please play the video?

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

And as I'm looking at both the online comments and, or public comment registrants and in-person, I believe we only have one person signed up for public comment.

That would be Dan McKisson speaking to item nine, resolution 32097. For those here in public, if you are speaking to any of the appointments or to the transportation resolution, can you please just raise your hand and we'll get you set up there.

Seeing none, I think everyone here is for the floating on water residences.

So Dan, you have two minutes and actually, Naomi, with this number of people signed up today, we're gonna do one minute.

Hang on, Dan, let's get your microphone set up.

Well, I'll just speak up.

Thank you.

Thank you, council members.

I wanna speak on the transportation resolution.

I thank you for presenting this.

We have some work to do on it, I believe, but it's going to be critical as the zoning changes are put forward in the industrial area, especially the stadium area overlay district, that we mitigate some of the impacts that are going to be implemented with the new zoning.

Having this transportation resolution will help address those, identify those issues, and we can work on those issues in the future.

to keep those important freight quarters open, the heavy haul corridor and SR 519. So I appreciate their work on this and look forward to working more on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

With that, seeing no other public comment registrants remotely or physically present to speak to public comment, public comment is now closed.

We will move on to the next agenda item.

We have amended the agenda to have informational item 2286 placed first on the agenda.

And so this is a briefing, discussion, and public hearing on informational item 2286, which is a moratorium on the replacement of floating on water residences.

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

Item two, informational item 2286, moratorium on replacement of floating on water residences for briefing, discussion, and public hearing.

Thank you.

Council Members were briefed individually prior to full City Council action on June 13, 2023. Council Bill 120588 which is Ordinance 126838 would take limited but meaningful action to protect our environment while a permanent policy is developed.

Floating on water residences are not required to be connected to sewers or water utilities.

They must have in place containment system for their blackwater toilet output.

There's no requirement to contain their gray water, which is discharged from dishwashers, washing machines, tub showers, and for the lucky ones, jacuzzis.

The gray water instead drains directly into our waterways.

This item today is a public hearing to meet the requirement to have a public hearing within 60 days of an emergency action moratorium from being adopted, which is what occurred.

Now, we do have Margaret Glowicki with SDCI to answer questions.

And Margaret, I hope that you have your presentation ready to go from our last meeting so that we can give council members another briefing on the bill.

Again, this is executive generated legislation for an emergency moratorium, and there is time to create the permanent policy that will be implemented.

Margaret, Maggie, sorry.

I see you're here.

I'm going to pass it over to you.

Okay, great.

Good morning everyone.

And thank you.

Council member stress.

Um, and committee members, I do have a PowerPoint.

What party?

Go for it.

Go for it.

Okay.

I have a PowerPoint presentation ready and let me, So, can everyone see my screen?

Yes, we can.

Great.

So.

I will talk about the moratorium on the replacement of floating on water residences.

But first, I would like to talk about the kind of the structure of the regulations that regulate our shorelines.

So we have a Shoreline Management Act and a Shoreline Master Program.

Our shorelines are a finite resource, and there are three main goals of the Shoreline Management Act, which trickles down to our Shoreline Master Program regulations at the local level.

These are to preserve areas for water-dependent uses, to protect the environment, and to provide areas for public access.

And then I would like to walk through what is a water-dependent use.

So here are pictures of water-dependent uses.

So these are activities that cannot exist anywhere but on the water or very close to the water.

So moorage for our fishing vessels, boat repair for large vessels, as well as our cruise industry and the container boats that come and offload goods at our ports.

Environmental protection includes protection of the shoreline area next to the shoreline within 200 feet as well as all the aquatic animals that live in the water.

And so plants and animals.

So, here is a salmon that uses our shorelines.

to migrate through the city.

We also have orcas that live out in the Puget Sound that also are dependent on clean water and the food that the shorelines help provide by help feeding the juvenile Chinook so they can grow and then be eaten by the Chinook.

And then also here's a picture on the right hand side that shows areas that are very good for the shoreline, where they provide vegetation, which helps protect the water quality, and then does provide for like insect drop that help protect the Chinook salmon or help provide prey items for the Chinook salmon.

So all of these work together where we can provide areas for You know, our, our water dependent uses and our environmental protection and then the last is for public access.

So, a lot of public access occurs.

At shoreline street ends as well as in our parks.

So these are pictures of those 3 areas and then sometimes on larger product.

Projects public access is a requirement.

So.

You know, that that kind of shows how the shorelines are a finite resource, and we need to provide for all of those goals of the shoreline management act.

And I'm going to walk into the floating on water residents or floating residents.

category, and that's what the topic of the moratorium is.

Back in 2007, when we started updating our comprehensive update of our Shoreline Master Program, we had guidelines from the Department of Ecology.

At that time, it said, preserve all the existing floating residences, but don't allow any more.

And so as part of that update we included a verification process so that we could keep track of numbers so for the floating homes, these are the traditional sleepless in Seattle floating homes.

These came on to our waters in the late 1800s early 1900s up to the present and.

We have standards in our Shoreline Master Program that have existed since the beginning of 1972, since we started with the Shoreline Master Program regulations.

These are connected to sewer and to water.

And as I said, we have 507 verified.

Then we have house barges.

This was a new type of floating residence that came onto our waters.

After the floating homes, kind of in the 1970s, 1990, it became the city became aware of these because they didn't really fit into the category of floating home, but they also didn't quite fit into the area of.

category of vessel.

So these were grandfathered in in 1994. Department of Ecology, City of Seattle worked on this program or worked on this legislation.

These were not connected to sewer or water.

They had detachable connection to electricity.

We verified 34 of these back in 1994. So then now a new category came onto the scene after 1994. These are not floating homes, they're not house barges, and they're not vessels for the fact that some of them did have small motors on the back.

These are not connected to sewer, are not connected to the water, you know, to public water.

They do have detachable connection to electricity.

So, and when we were doing the update of our Shoreline Master Program, we were looking into how do we categorize these.

And these, you can see they have the small outboard motors on them.

So this was when, in 2014, the state legislators became involved, and they grandfathered in this category of floating on-water residences.

There was an estimate in 2014 to be 113. This was from an outside source, the SDCI.

We also did an informal survey, and we estimated there were about 125, so the number was pretty similar.

As of 2022, there were 222 verified.

And so these were, let me see what the next slide is.

So these were defined as structure at the state legislate, you know, in the state legislation, the word structure is Defined, you know, is it is used as part of the definition that these are floating on water structures and also by definition at the state level structure says that it defines what a structure is and says that a structure is not a vessel.

So there's where the distinction between a floating on water resident structure.

And a vessel was made in 2014, SDCI worked on our regulations with that definition.

And so here's the vessel that we're talking vessels that we're talking about.

These are water dependent uses and so a vessel such as a sailboat or a motor boat.

And we have seen.

vessels that came in and got verified as floating on water residences and then turned this water dependent use into a permanent floating residence.

And so what the moratorium does is that it What the moratorium does is that it just puts a hold on this conversion of vessel into a permanent floating on water residence so that we can continue to uphold the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act.

Then just for clarification, this vessel right here did come in and get verified as a floating on water residence.

That is the conclusion of my slideshow.

Thank you, Maggie.

Keep up the slides for now.

So you're saying this sailboat on the left received a floating on water resident permit, and then the permit stayed true, but it was replaced by a structure.

Is that correct?

So this sailboat turned into this.

But right now, this has not been replaced.

So what the moratorium will do is put on hold the replacement of vessels such as this or this, any type of vessel.

It just puts on hold the replacement of those vessels.

So it does not, if you could go back to the last slide.

where the sailboat on the left turned into the structure on the right.

There's no change to the structure on the right at this time.

That has already, that change has already occurred.

We're not going back and retroactively changing anything.

We are saying we are pausing conversions at this time.

Exactly.

Okay.

I had another question, but I want to check with my colleagues.

Colleagues, do you have any other questions here?

Seeing Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I really appreciate seeing this presentation again, because there were constituents who wrote in who were concerned about the moratorium.

And I know that the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection, SDCI, will be getting back to them with responses about the different definitions and whether they would be impacted by the moratorium.

I think there are people who are worried that their home would be impacted by the moratorium, but it wouldn't.

So appreciate SDCI being responsive to those constituents and answering all their questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

So just again, to reiterate what Councilmember Peterson just said, if you live in the structure that is on the right, no changes occur.

If you live in the sailboat that's on the left, there is a pause on making the conversion into the house on the right.

But you, again, are not, you don't have to relinquish living there.

There's no changes at this time.

So wherever you are at right now, you will be, we'll get to public hearing in just a second.

Thank you, sir.

Wherever you are at right now, we are going to pause while permanent legislation is created.

Maggie, is there anything else that you'd like to add here?

No.

Okay.

Do you have any more slides or is that about it?

That was it.

Council Member Nelson.

Yeah, I just thought of something.

Maggie, has there ever been any request or thinking about how to provide Blackwater and Greywater hookups to structures?

Um, yes, so back when I was working on the comprehensive update of the shoreline master program, I know that.

the marina at the Gatford Park Marina looked into getting, you know, retrofitted with pipes to take away their black and gray water.

And it would be similar to how floating homes are set up.

You know, floating homes are out on the dark docks and there's pipes that carry the water in and carry the water, you know, discharge gray water and black water out.

Right.

Thank you.

And Maggie, can you please present to the public what the outreach plan will be for the next year?

How will you go about developing this permanent legislation?

So we do, similar to the outreach that we did for the comprehensive update, we generally reach out to groups that are already organized and ask to come to their meetings, ask if they would like additional information from SDCI.

And so we like to go where people are already meeting.

And so we will go to existing meetings, but then we also have general, You know, public meetings open to everyone, you know, in the past, we've done it at birth Atlantis.

I imagine that we'll have a zoom option for those meetings as well.

So, you know, just we use public media to let people know that it's happening and then.

you know, try to try to get as many meetings in to hear from as many people as well as having some information up on our website.

We'll have a S&P update website where people can provide comment on that as well or comment through that format as well.

And what's your timeline?

So, you know, it's part of the S&P moratorium.

I'm sorry I didn't pull it up, but generally we look at six months for public outreach would be would be a matter of time, maybe it's four months, because we all have to remember also that this is a smaller update.

It's not the full comprehensive update.

It's the periodic update of our Shoreline Master Program.

And so through our implementation of the SMP, we do have a list of other amendments that we'll be proposing as we hear from staff and other constituents.

So it may be four months.

If that's what you mean for what's our timeline, I can try to pull that out.

Yeah, I'm hoping to understand for the public here on the public record, what is the timeline for final development of this permanent legislation and timeline of how you will be outreaching with residents in the interim?

What's the best way for them to be connected with you?

So, again, I would say through our website, and we do have a.

Oh, we do have a list serve, you know, so people that have already signed up to be made aware of updates to the shoreline master program.

That's another gigantic way that we communicate.

So.

I would say within the, you know, we'll have a website up and running.

There'll be the opportunity on the website to sign up to receive emails, and then we'll send out any information regarding public meetings through that email listserv.

Thank you.

Is the website ready right now?

It is not ready right now.

Okay.

I'm putting on the public record that that needs to occur this week.

Okay.

Will do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Maggie, it would be helpful on that website to have a very clear timeline of your outreach schedule so that people know when they can expect to hear from you, how long that outreach schedule will take, when you will be developing a permanent legislation for the public to review, and what the timeline is for final passage so that people have a very clear understanding of when and how to engage.

Yes.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any final questions?

Not seeing any.

We are going to move right into the public hearing.

The clerk has already played the video.

We're not going to play it again.

I think everyone gets the point.

We'll have one minute per speaker and Please be nice and unfortunately if you go over your time will will turn the microphone off.

As per usual we're going to start with people in person and move to online public commenters.

I see online, we have Jonathan fraud and Dan Jenkins, both are present for those in the room, I'm going to call you up one by one and if you want to.

go to one microphone and then to the next.

I call, I let people know three at a time as if we were playing baseball, our star game coming up.

So up first is I'm going to read through the whole list so you know where you're at.

And then we're going to go through it three, three by three.

Mari Shuler, John Cheney, John Giesker, Michelle Wedeland, Dan Stutz, Jeremy Fuller, Ned Carner, Kate Quinn, Andres Healy, Suzanne Whitehead, Cheryl Groff, Ron Hess, Derek Amstaz, Kate Quinn, we already have you, Mike.

Nicker, sorry if I'm messing these up.

Hard to read some of the handwriting.

Shane Griggs, Suzanne Robinette, and sir who raised your hand, if you want to sign up, you're more than welcome to sign up at any time.

With that, we have the public, the timer up.

And Mari, great to see you.

Mari Shuler, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to meet with you in the near future.

I got a message that you're going to meet with us.

That's very positive.

And because you have limited our time to one minute, and I wrote a two-minute presentation, I'm going to cut to the chase and give you our two asks first.

First, pass another ordinance just as quickly as you pass this moratorium, which was lightning fast with no input, and rescind the moratorium.

Number two, allow us time to meet with each of you to give you the real facts, not the alternate facts about what's going on here.

So those are my ask, please consider them.

Now, my presentation.

I served on a council in the city of Edmonds, so I know how easy it is to accept what the mayor's staff tells you.

They were here when you got here and they'll be here when you're gone.

So I get that.

But you've been misled.

There is no emergency.

There was no reason for a moratorium.

The staff has not shown you any examples of being flooded.

And Maury, your time has expired.

So I do look forward to meeting.

That was one minute.

New York Minute.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mari.

Up next is John Chaney, followed by John Giesker and Michelle.

I'm going to just use first names.

Thank you, John.

My name is John Chaney.

I actually just handed your clerk two items that I want to make sure are in the public record.

One of them you could even look at.

I have a copy for you, Sarah.

I have a copy for you, Dan.

Part of the problem here is you had briefings.

and I would call them secret briefings because they weren't made to the public, they weren't made to us.

I'd say the other thing that really irritates me is that the other item that I left is each of us that are floating on water residences, it's funny your introduction video talks about the flowers of Seattle, that's what we call ourselves, flowers, that Each of us has been verified by the city.

The city has our name, our address, our email, all of our contact information.

Not one, not one of us was addressed by the city.

Terrible public participation.

So that's not what I wanted to say, but that's sort of where.

Thank you, John.

Up next is John followed by Michelle and then Dan Stutz.

Does this mic work?

Yes, it does, sir.

My name is John Geisiger.

I'm a retired maritime lawyer.

and also a flower owner with me and my wife.

I'm concerned here about John's issue of failure of notice and opportunity for the public, especially those of us who are stakeholders and among the audience members are stakeholders who have considerable things at stake financially because of flowers.

I'm also concerned that the city is buying itself an opportunity for suits about taking, because if you take away a privilege that has a financial market, an existing financial market, you may very well be responsible for having to pay the actual market value of the privilege that's been removed.

And I would urge Maggie Klawacki and other members of her team to consider what the possible legal ramifications are of this particular moratorium.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, John.

Up next is Michelle, followed by Dan and then Jeremy.

Michelle, welcome.

My name is Michelle wetland.

I was a nurse 45 years and love being here in Seattle and I love, you know, and I just want everyone to understand that the people who live on the water are not trying to do damage.

We don't want to kill any kind of animals in the water, the ducks.

We actually clean the water.

I mean, I have nets.

I take things that came from the water, from boats and stuff that throw things over the side.

And we try to really be good people on the water, not, not being bad people on the water.

And it's, it's a dream of mine to be living on my flower.

And I would, you know, I would like to hope other people could enjoy that.

So thank you so much.

Thank you, Michelle.

Up next is Dan followed by Jeremy and then Ned and Kate.

Good morning.

Thank you folks for your time.

You know, it strikes me as a bit of a shock how fast this has come about.

and the understanding of really what's out there.

As a business person and as a resident of Seattle, I'd like us all to be fair and not rush to judgment and not go through this haphazardly.

I think it's, if we wanna talk about emergencies, take a look at the homeless situation in our city.

That's an emergency.

what we're doing now to the very small community as a resident, as a taxpayer, as a business person, I'd like a little equity.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Up next is Jeremy, followed by Ned and Kate.

Jeremy, welcome.

Thank you.

So I'll cut to the chase.

You're being presented misinformation by DCI, and I know that sounds a little conspiracy theory, but they're just hard facts in the SMC.

The idea that we can expand over water coverage is expressly forbidden in the municipal code.

So the fact that they're using that as one of the basis for this moratorium is 100% false.

The other one is that we're going to be producing more gray water.

That, again, if there is expansion, not of the overwater, but of the square footage, these are two very different items, then it is also in the code that it has to be contained.

So both those two points, which are the two biggest points, are false and misleading by DCI.

There is a third one, which is total conjecture that all of a sudden this new structure is going to become a permanent residence and produce more hazards, more gray water.

That, again, there's no proof of that.

And it's total conjecture that that is actually happening.

Please rescind this or amend it to allow

Thank you.

Up next is Ned followed by Kate and then Andres.

And is this Ned, oh.

Ned, Kate, and Quinn, all three of us.

Oh, I see, all three of you.

Yes.

All right, let's give you two minutes just since you're here.

Oh, thank you very much.

But please, everyone speak at some point.

Oops, what's that?

If everyone could speak at some point.

Oh, everyone can speak, perfect, okay.

I didn't prepare them for that, so we'll give it a shot.

Okay, am I ready?

Yep.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

I'm Ned Karner, I'm a small business owner, and actually my two daughters here, Kate and Quinn are business owners as well.

You want to tell them about your business?

Go ahead, Quinn.

We own a floating lemonade stand.

If you heard that.

So they own a floating lemonade stand on Lake Union that sells to houseboats so the two of us want the two business owners of us are small business owners that wanted to talk.

My business is actually rebuilding houseboats so I actually purchased a number of houseboats.

And I actually don't fit into the two categories on that list.

I purchased derelict houseboats that actually were, that I thought were at risk of endangering the environment.

So I demolished those.

And so all I have is a plaque and I don't have a finished houseboat.

So I think that's misleading because now by doing this delay or potential deferral, I'm being harmed because I can't rebuild and I don't have the benefit of a boat and I was just trying to do the right thing.

And so I think that this needs to be either amended to allow any in process or demolished boats to be rebuilt so that I'm not being harmed.

I have a very small business that I'm just starting right now.

And this is a key part of my business.

And by doing this, you're actually putting me out of business.

So I'd very much like for this to be amended.

And my girls would love to, we live on a houseboat.

We love the lifestyle.

We think it should be shared by all people.

And they've learned a tremendous amount of business.

by being there and we think that should be shared and not be squelched.

That's our approach.

Kate and Quinn, why is this important to you?

We moved on a houseboat about three years ago and it's a very cool lifestyle.

I know a lot of people would like to live there.

What's your favorite part about the lifestyle, the houseboats?

My favorite part is probably that it's really fun in the summer.

We just get to hang.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much, appreciate the time.

Appreciate you.

Andres, followed by Suzanne and then Cheryl.

Andres, welcome.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Andres Healy.

I was in the process of getting a new FOWR.

We've been in the permitting process for 22 months.

We were nearing the end.

To say this came as a shock to me is an understatement.

I mean, to the point that STPI made, my FOR has no gray water, has no black water.

It's connected to city water, city sewers, city electricity, would have none of the environmental implications that they're concerned about.

Nevertheless, the scope of the moratorium is so broad that it would pick me up.

Basically, I was told that my permit was rejected again through the process for 22 months.

I've invested more than a million dollars in this process and it's just unfair.

It's not just for them to make these changes.

with no outreach, with no input from the community.

I mean, that's a substantial investment for me.

And it's something that I think as business owners, Ms. Nelson, I'm one of your constituents, it's not how it should be done.

And there should have been more input.

And I think that the moratorium as currently written is overbroad and needs to be adjusted to taking these sort of factors into account.

Thank you, Andres.

Up next is Suzanne followed by Cheryl and then Ron.

Suzanne, welcome.

Hi, I actually didn't know I was able to speak but I'm glad to be able to I, I hadn't signed up because I didn't really even understand what all of this was about.

I will address a few things though I think first of all that there's a, this is a much broader, there's a lot more A lot broader implications to this than just maybe putting on permits on hold for a short time.

My husband and I are have been in a multi year process to rebuild a house but we've had for six years at Gasworks Park Marina, and I keep the slide they're showing the sailboat to this weird oval thing you can't do that not only.

Can the overwater coverage not change?

The dimensions can't change.

We wanted to make our boat a little tiny bit wider so it'd be more stable and shorter.

So the overwater coverage would have been the same.

They did not allow it.

We literally have to half an inch.

They could deny, they could not approve us because of the half an inch difference.

Anyway, I had other points.

I can't remember what, but thank you for listening.

Thanks.

Bye.

Thank you, Suzanne.

I see Dan Jenkins is not present on the online public hearing.

We are getting close, Dan.

So if anyone knows Dan to have him call in now, it's not the same.

It is not the council listen line.

It's the it's the phone number provided in the RSVP.

No further further to Cheryl.

Welcome.

Hello.

Good morning.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Cheryl Groff and I live at Gasworks Park Marina on a flower.

I'm retired.

This is my only home.

We love it.

We love the lake.

We care for the environment around us and also for the public access area that is forested there.

We've been involved in reforesting that.

So we feel we do everything we can to support and improve the environment around us and to ensure that the health of it.

And I think this moratorium is ill-advised and too quick without public input.

I think if one considers that we're not increasing the number of slips, there would be a vessel there covering the same amount of water.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Up next is Ron followed by Derek.

We talked to Kate Quinn and talked to Kate and Quinn already, followed by Mike, Sean, and Susan.

Ron, welcome.

Thank you, council members.

I'm a board member at gas park Marina, and I'd like to state that the substantive basis, the moratorium seem erroneous, the number of hours can't be increased it's fixed the footprint of the flowers as you've heard is fixed and can't be changed.

And the scale of gray water that powers the 225 hours represent compared to the 2000 boats in the lake Marina or Lake Union, for example, is really out of scale.

And as my wife, Cheryl said, we've protected the environment around us in Gasworks Park, Waterway 19 and the wildlife there is amazing.

The fish are amazing, and the birds that are feeding on them are amazing.

I'm a taxpayer.

The vessel is my only home.

And we need to rebuild these things for insurance purposes sometimes.

Thank you, Ron.

Up next is Derek, followed by Mike, Sean, and then Susan.

Derek Amstis.

Hi, my name is Derek.

I bought a houseboat in 2017 is my first house.

At that time I was promised, or at least told I was allowed to have 120 foot square foot addition, which we tried to go through that process with DCI and it was nearly impossible, as we've already heard.

The idea of having more overwater coverage, to my knowledge, is not allowed in any way.

But the big question I have is what the emergency is, why the moratorium is necessary at this time.

Anyway, that's all.

Thank you, Derek.

Up next is Mike, Sean, and Susan.

Mike, welcome.

Yeah, thanks for the time on this.

My.

Great-grandfather developed Portage Bay Marina.

My father lived in a houseboat.

I lived in a houseboat in the 70s when I was playing a little bit of ball with Bruce at Washington.

And I'm trying to build one for my daughter Ellen right now.

I want to point out that this is about a conversion of vessels, the FOWRs.

Vessels right now have almost a minimal regulatory oversight on how they're pumping wastewater into our waterways.

With FOWRs, that turns around, we contain.

We either pump out or tie in the sewer.

So the fact is, this moratorium is actually going to harm our lake.

Those of us who helped support forward thrust back in the early 60s, this is where we want to go to continue to protect our waterways.

If you allow the moratorium to go forward, it actually has a negative impact on our waterways.

We need to accelerate this process of this conversion, not put a moratorium on it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mike.

No.

If, if more people can sign up for public comment, you can sign up at any point until the public comment is closed.

Good afternoon.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Please.

My name is Sean Griggs.

I'm an attorney.

I've spent too much of my life staring at this code and dealing with these issues for the past decade.

I want to reiterate something that Mr. Fuller said.

You are being lied to.

I know that sounds crazy.

I sent you this morning a five page letter with lots of footnotes and cites to the code.

that kind of flushes that out, because there's not time in a minute to prove that.

But in a nutshell, there's no loophole here.

There's no increase in overwater coverage, be it from a vessel fowler, a UFO fowler, a structure fowler.

There's no way you can.

I mean, the law is very clear.

And to prove that, I went back and I looked at 11 applications from 2017 to the present.

And in every case, SDC, I raked them over the coals to make sure there was no increase in overwater coverage.

that's currently covered in the SMP, as is the discharge of gray water for all types of fowlers.

There are lots of vessel fowlers in existence already.

They were between 2015 and 2019 when the code was amended.

There were a number of them.

This whole problem came about because the city of Seattle amended its own code in 2019 to expand the definition of what a vessel fowler is.

That was why the legislature would set the policy on these topics, change the code of the SNA in 2021. And you've got all of it.

Thank you, Sean.

Last in person, and anyone else present can sign up at any time.

Susan.

Hi.

Hi.

I'm a real estate broker.

I specialize in selling houseboats, so this affects me very much.

But I would like to give my minute to Sean Griggs, if I could.

Sorry.

Um, so, so the legislature amended the Charlie Management Act in 2021 to provide that vessels can be fired.

They did that to clarify that when the city council took action in 2019 to expand the definition vessel and exclude a bunch of eligible flowers from from eligibility, basically, they overruled it.

Um, and so the that that being the case, you've probably at least half of the power.

I would guess half of the powers out there qualifies vessels under S.

M. C.

23 68 9 42 as as currently drafted.

So this moratorium doesn't just affect literally, there's been 11 vessel that's been verified as a power since the surely management act was was verified.

And that was that sailboat that you saw with the large metal roof, which, by the way, with that metal anywhere.

So it was a permanent residence.

That said, uh, this moratorium covers at least half of the fowlers in existence, including two or three that are currently in permitting.

They've been in permitting for nearly two years now.

So.

Thank you, Sean.

We're going to move to online public comment registrants.

If you are here in person and would like to sign up, you are more than welcome to at any point.

Clerk, you can leave it there until we're complete with this public hearing.

Up first is Jonathan Fraj, followed by Dan Jenkins.

Jonathan.

I see you're here, star six to unmute.

You're off mute.

You have one minute.

Hi, this is Jonathan Froch.

I have over 40 years water quality experience in King County and Seattle.

The FOWR designation is a loophole that allows pollution by discharge of gray water if you're not connected to the sewer.

gray water contains endocrine disrupting chemicals and a lot of toxic chemicals that goes right into or directly into the water.

If you're on shore, you're not allowed to discharge gray water specifically for the impacts that it has to water.

So this is an excellent first step at minimizing additional pollution generating over And the issue should be that these should be connected to the sanitary.

Greywater should not be discharged.

And we should go forward from that.

But this is an excellent first step.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Up next is Dan Jenkins.

Dan, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

I see you're unmuted.

Take it away.

Dan Jenkins, where's the emergency?

should be dismissed, over-regulation by the city, and if the city was serious about doing something smart, they'd sit down with Sean Griggs, who's been dealing with this for 20 years or 10 years, who knows the code intimately, and come up with a plan that really works.

In no way should any existing flower vessel conversion be a moratorium placed on an existing one that's already been approved.

And the fact is, The amount of vessels that this affects is so minute.

It's silly.

It's ridiculous.

The city is spending all this time, energy and resources on a handful of flowers that are already approved with the code that already exists, which limits gray water, eliminates gray water from going into the lake.

In addition, How much runoff if pollution goes into the lake is far more than any flower runoff.

Thank you, Dan.

I do see Lindsay Wolpe has signed up for public comment.

Unfortunately, Lindsay, we have closed public comment and moved on to further agenda items.

Please do feel free to send in your comments at any time.

Clerk, I have seen that another person has signed up for this public hearing.

Thank you.

And Riley Haggard.

Welcome.

How are you, Riley?

My dad and I are Haggard Houseboats.

We're a father and son houseboat building company here in Seattle.

We've built houseboats since 2006. We built about one a year.

We're not a multinational corporation.

Jeremy Fuller, and there's another builder.

We're not talking about a massive influx of builders coming in to take vessels to build houseboats here.

It's been overstated.

We were in the middle of a permit process.

We spent $10,000.

I've been in communication with DCI.

We were at the finish line, ready for publication for our permit, and we got kicked out, punted, punted, punted, until June 26th.

I emailed DCI.

I had to initiate contact with DCI to understand why am I getting pushed out.

Then a moratorium is instituted, and then they tell me, sorry, you're on hold for six months.

We spent thousands of dollars on a bower to buy it, to do the rebuild, thousands of dollars on a permit, and we didn't even get communicated with.

I had to initiate the communication to find out why my permit's on hold.

It's unacceptable.

The city has to do better.

That's not transparent, that's not.

Thank you, Riley.

I want to thank everyone for coming in today.

As you've been speaking, I've been taking notes.

I think you've noticed me taking notes and I do look forward to meeting with a number of you in the near future.

And STCI, it's clear that we need to get this permanent legislation completed faster than I think what is originally proposed.

With that, colleagues, I am not seeing any additional public hearing registrants for informational item 2286. Clerk, or I guess, Son, can you, Mr. G, can you confirm that there are no more online public comment registrants?

Affirmative.

Thank you.

Anyone else here in the public want to comment today?

Seeing none, that was our last speaker physically and remotely present to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on informational item 2286 is now closed.

I wanna thank you all for coming in.

I do look forward to meeting with you.

And if you are having additional issues with SDCI, please do let me know.

With that, we are gonna move on to item one as printed on the agenda.

Our first item on the agenda is a briefing discussion, public hearing and possible vote on Council Bill 120-592, which will update land use regulations for rooftops in Pioneer Square.

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

Item one, Council Bill 120-592, updating regulations for rooftops in Pioneer Square for briefing, discussion, public hearing, and possible vote.

Yeah, Sarah, if you want to help them out.

Thank you.

This legislation is a technical fix to regulations that were adopted last year.

The purpose of this bill is to clarify what some may have not found clear in the legislation that we passed last year, and it is to encourage neighborhood investment in Pioneer Square by increasing height limits for buildings built in 2008 or later.

I see we have Gordon Clowers here.

We were briefed in the Land Use Committee on June 28, 2023 by Mr. Clowers with the Department of Construction and Inspection.

Gordon is here today again to provide a brief refresher and answer any additional questions you may have.

Gordon, if you'd like to give us an abbreviated presentation.

And I see Lish Whitson is also here from Council Central staff.

Lish, please pipe in at any time and we'll ask you for an open review right after Gordon.

Gordon, floor is yours.

All right.

Can you see the presentation?

Yes, we can.

OK.

I'll go through that.

Here we go.

So the goal of the proposal, as you summarized, was to clarify, correct, and give some standardized guidance on rooftop features in Pioneer Square to add a little bit more flexibility to what's possible on rooftop uses and to do that to support neighborhood revitalization and amenity opportunities.

And the code changes we made last year had defined a new penthouse use or two in Pioneer Square lodging and eating and drinking establishments.

and it allowed retrofit of new buildings built since 2008 with rooftop recreational amenity spaces.

The changes we propose this year to clarify and provide more flexibility are to allow for three feet additional height for rooftop uses on historic buildings and to allow them to reach 15 feet.

Also new rooftop uses on non-historic sites to allow the common recreation space and eating and drinking establishments to both exist on buildings built since 2008. And we would increase the coverage limit for that kind of use by 5%.

A little bit more on that change.

The actual change is to allow the commercial use, eating and drinking, establishment on these buildings built since 2008. While doing that, we still would have them meet the required amenity spaces and green features that are also in the code for this kind of building.

Here is the map portraying the affected properties for the buildings built since 2008. and similar opportunities.

The ones in yellow, one through five, are existing buildings.

And the properties shown in red are non-historic buildings that are garages that could be subject to development in the future.

And then there are two vacant properties, 10 and 11, that also could be future infill development buildings.

So these are the affected properties.

And with that, I will turn it over to Lish, unless you have questions.

No, Lish, take it away.

Not much to add.

I just want to note that the rooftop features can be both enclosed and unenclosed.

So some of these eating and drinking establishments could be outdoor.

Thank you, Lish.

We're going to now open, colleagues, any comments or questions?

Just in summary, before we open the public hearing today, we heard this bill in our June 28th meeting.

I would like to pass this bill out today because our next meeting is in September.

And just to clarify, this was intended to be part of the bill that was passed last year.

Clearly, we need to make some clarifications so that folks aren't confused in any way.

This applies to 11 sites only and is part of how we reactivate downtown and Pioneer Square.

So with that, we've already played the video about public comment.

Please be nice.

We'll mute the microphone after one minute.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120592 is now open.

We have two public hearing registrants.

We have Greg Smith and Chris Woodward.

Greg, at your convenience, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

I see you're unmuted.

Welcome, Greg.

Thank you, council members.

I'm Greg Smith, CEO of Urban Visions.

I'm a local real estate company exclusively focused on downtown Seattle.

I've been involved in Pioneer Square for over 40 years.

Our most recent projects include the Weyerhaeuser headquarters on Occidental Park and the historic Good Arts building on First and Cherry.

And most recently, the seven-story office building called The Jack located at the corner of Alaska Way South and South Jackson, which we just opened.

We all know how tough COVID has been on Pioneer Square and how it has exacerbated many of our neighborhood challenges.

Going forward, we need to support as much positive energy for Pioneer Square as possible.

In this regard, we support the proposed rooftop ordinance to help projects like the Jack have vibrant rooftop options, including restaurants to serve the neighborhood and its residents, employees, and tourists, much like many other neighborhoods in the city.

We agree with our friends at the Alliance for Pioneer Square and Historic Seattle that the rooftop ordinance will help Pioneer Square draw more energy.

And thank you, Greg.

I can agree with you that the Weyerhaeuser building has improved Occidental Square immensely.

Up next is Chris Woodward.

I see you're here present, Chris, if you want to press star six to unmute.

If somebody is listening and can text Chris, Mr. G, is there any way to just automatically unmute him?

Negative.

I've been sending prompts and there's been no response.

Thank you, sir.

Going to go Chris Woodward going once.

Chris Woodward going twice.

Chris Woodward, star six to unmute.

We are happy to take your public comment if you would like to send it into us.

Yup, there you are, off mute.

I see you, Chris.

Sorry about that, I was in the wrong keypad.

Hey, good morning, council members.

On behalf of the Alliance for Pioneer Square, of which I'm the Community Development Director, I'm calling in to express our support for Council Bill 120592, which will allow for more flexibility in rooftop eating and drinking and lodging uses in parts of Pioneer Square.

Echoing Greg, echoing what other council members have said, this is an important bill to help with the revitalization of Pioneer Square, bring people back down to the neighborhood and support the businesses in the district.

So in short, we encourage council to adopt it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

With that, there are no more public hearing registrants remotely or physically present and That was our last speaker present at the public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 120592 is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to vote on this legislation today.

I would like to open the floor for any additional comments or questions for Gordon Clowers at SDCI or Lish Whitson at Council Central staff.

Colleagues, are there any questions, comments, or concerns?

Council Member Nelson.

When you reference the, the bill last year what I remember is the CID, the legislation regarding the CID is that what you're referring to.

Gordon maybe if you want to just speak to the legislation last year so that Councilmember Nelson and I don't have different definitions here.

Yes, please.

Sure.

So it was last year's legislation covered almost all zones in the city.

And it did a lot of simplifying of that language and increasing coverage capability, especially for heat pumps and things of that nature to help buildings be able to comply with the energy code.

And for Chinatown, as well as Pioneer Square, we increased coverage to allow for greenhouses for plant production and so on, as well as adjusting upwards by, if I recall, 10 or 15% for Chinatown ID, as well as Pioneer Square, and somewhat more in other zones, including in downtown.

Thank you.

Yep, so the answer to that was yes and.

Okay, excellent.

Well, this seems to make sense to me because we have gorgeous views and limited space.

And I support the ability to take advantage of those amenities and improve our urban landscape by providing those spaces for people.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson, I see you're Sitting ready, nope, no questions from Council Member Peterson.

Colleagues, any other questions here?

Seeing as we have no further questions, I am gonna make a motion to suspend the rules.

Now's the time to raise your hand if you don't want me to do that.

I appreciate y'all doing this.

So if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on Council Bill 120592 on the same day as the public hearing.

Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended.

Are there any final comments before we move on to a roll call vote of Council Bill 120592 as amended?

I don't believe this was amended, clerk.

No, sorry, it was not amended.

Thank you.

Seeing none, I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120592. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 120592. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

she left as excused.

Chair Schatz?

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120592 passes.

The bill will be sent to the July 11, 2023 City Council meeting for a final vote.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Gordon.

Thank you, Lish.

Up next, we have a series of appointments.

So appointment Item three is our appointment to the Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board, appointment 02591, which will appoint Janelle Hicks to the EDI Advisory Board.

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

Item three, appointment 02591, appointment of Janelle Hicks to the Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

We're joined by Abisha Shafra.

My apologies.

I'm sure that I'd said that incorrectly.

From the Office of Planning and Community Development for this discussion, Abisha, welcome.

Can you please provide a brief background on the Equitable Development Initiative Advisory Board and the candidates' qualifications?

Yes, good morning.

My name is Abishai Shafra.

I'm with the EDI team.

Thank you for having me.

So EDI's vision is to address displacement and the unequal distribution of opportunities and investment to sustain a diverse Seattle.

EDI fosters community leadership and supports organizations to promote equitable access to housing, jobs, education, parks, cultural expressions, healthy foods, and other community needs and amenities.

And we currently have Annually, we release a request for proposals to support this kind of work.

Thank you.

And can you speak to Janelle?

Yes, so Janelle Hicks is originally from Seattle and has been a longtime resident of the Central District.

She has been serving King County residents for the last 23 years.

And Janelle is an advocate and champion for vulnerable communities.

She is passionate about equity and social justice and making Seattle and King County a livable place for everybody.

Wonderful.

Colleagues, any questions, comments on this appointment to the EDI Advisory Board?

I'm seeing none, and I would like to move forward.

So seeing as there's no final comments, I would like to move to recommend confirmation of appointment 02591. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointment 2591. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Appointment 02591 passes.

And this appointment will be moved to the full city council final vote on July 11th.

We are going to move on to the planning commission.

I will, I forgot to share this before we got into the appointments today, is that these are all mayoral appointments.

The council appointments for these different boards I have not had time to review because, again, of the tree protection ordinance.

The industrial maritime zoning changes and then the backlog that has taken place since then.

And so we plan to pass those in September.

At the earliest.

So our next four items on the agenda, our is a briefing discussion and possible vote on appointments 025919394 and nine five.

which will appoint Andrew Dannenberg, Monica Sharma, Dania Solarez, and Nicholas Whipple to the Seattle Planning Commission.

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

Items four, five, six, and seven, appointments 02592, 02593, 02594, and 02595. Appointments of Andrew Dannenberg, Monica Sherma, Diana Quintar-Solares, and Nicholas Whipple to the Seattle Planning Commission for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

And we're joined by Vanessa Murdoch of the Office of Planning and Community Development and Executive Director of the Planning Commission.

Welcome, Vanessa.

Would you like to give a little background on the Planning Commission and speak to each candidate?

Certainly.

Thank you very much, Chair Strauss and committee members.

The Seattle Planning Commission is a 16-member volunteer body that provides advice to this body, to the mayor and department staff on issues related to land use, transportation, and housing.

We have three appointments for your consideration today.

All appointments are subject to city council approval, both those appointed by the mayor and those by this body.

We have three appointments to for your consideration today in addition to a reappointment that technically actually should have gone through last year, but we're just doing some a little bit of tidying up.

So with your permission, I can see on the screen, I am joined by two of the candidates joining online, and then I can speak to the two others.

So Andy Dannenberg and Nick Whipple are both on the line.

With your permission, I'd like to give them an opportunity to briefly introduce themselves.

Yes.

Who's up first?

Andrew Dannenberg is off mute.

Please, Mr. Dannenberg.

Welcome.

I'm Andy Dannenberg.

I'm on the faculty at the University of Washington.

I am a physician working in public health.

I've been working on the issues of land use and the built environment and their impacts on public health for about the last 20 years.

I teach courses related to health and the built environment.

I see working with the Seattle Planning Commission as a wonderful opportunity to try to improve the city and looking at a lot of the issues that we've spent quite a few years working on and being part of those discussions for moving the city forward.

So I thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Dannenberg.

And I know that our city benefits from the classes that you teach.

I see in your packet you also added, was it a DADU or an ADU?

An ADU to your house as part to relieve some of our housing stock.

So not only are you teaching, you are practicing I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Something that I always say about the planning commission, why it sits so close to my heart is because our lives, the quality of our lives are dictated by the built environment.

And that is why it is so critical to have this planning commission and folks such as Mr. Dannenberg, Dr. Dannenberg, if I may, who not only teach the next generation, but also are implementing and helping us plan our city of today.

Anything further, Mr. Danenberg or colleagues, any questions for Mr. Danenberg?

Seeing none, we look forward to having your appointment at full council.

You need not attend.

And thank you for your volunteer service to our city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next, I see Nick Whipple.

Nick, if you want to give us a little background about yourself and welcome.

Great, thank you so much.

So my name is Nick Whipple.

I am a longtime resident of Washington State, born and raised, moved to Seattle about a decade ago.

I live in the North Delridge neighborhood of West Seattle.

I have around 12 years of public sector planning experience, almost a decade of which has been just across the pond over at the city of Bellevue.

In my day job, I am engaged in a lot of the policy challenges around housing, transportation, and land use.

I do have a passion for increasing access to amenities and services that make neighborhoods like North Delridge really livable and an exciting place for me to live.

This is a really exciting opportunity for me to contribute to the good work of the Commission and the City Council in helping shape the city's future and make Seattle a more equitable and livable and environmentally sustainable city for everyone.

So I very much look forward to serving the city in this way.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Nick I know that we appreciate your volunteer service and again another practitioner of land use planning at a couple different levels here I see just as a land use planner as a code and policy senior planner and now as a code and policy manager not only working within the city of our neighboring city across the pond, but also as a state regarding state and regional matters.

I will say the city of Seattle was incorporated in the 1880s.

The city across the pond was incorporated in the 1950s, which creates different opportunities and challenges for us both.

And we love our sister city across the pond.

I have a preference for ours though.

With that, any questions or comments for Mr. Whipple?

Seeing none, we're gonna send your appointment to full council next week.

You need not attend and we thank you for your volunteer service to our city.

Thank you.

And do we have any more remotely present?

We do not.

I'm happy to speak to Monica Sharma and Diana Quintanar.

Monica is a community-oriented planner, a planner by education, and a youth-focused community organizer by trade.

Her most recent position was with Bike Works, doing youth engagement around taking care of a bike, repairing a bike, She is committed to volunteer service and very much looks forward to applying her education and learning as well as teaching as a member of the Seattle Planning Commission should she be appointed.

Diana Quintana is a current planning commissioner seeking reappointment effective last year.

She is a mobility, public space, environmental and transportation planner consultant.

Prior to her work at WSP here in Seattle, she led the authority of public space of Mexico City.

She has a great amount of experience working at the intersections of land use, transportation, mobility, and equity.

She's been a fantastic contributor thus far, and we're very hopeful that this body will recommend her for reappointment.

Thank you very much, Vanessa.

Colleagues, any questions or comments on this last appointment and reappointment?

I am not seeing any, and I think it speaks to the quality of the candidates that you recruit, Vanessa.

And again, these are all volunteer positions, and I just want to thank everyone for their volunteer service to our city.

Seeing no further comments, I move to recommend confirmation of appointments 02592, 93, 94, and 95. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointment 02592593594595. Will the clerk please call the roll.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Appointments 02592939495 passes.

And these appointments will be sent to the full council for final vote on July 11, 2023. Thank you very much, Vanessa.

And we hope to see you again soon.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair Strauss and committee members.

Thank you.

Our next agenda item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on zero on appointment 02597 which will appoint Alicia Alicia Kellogg to the Urban Forestry Commission clerk will you please read the short title into the record.

Item A, appointment 02597, appointment of Alicia Keylog to the Urban Forestry Commission for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

And we are joined by the one and only Patti Backer from the Office of Sustainability and Environment for this discussion.

Patti, welcome.

Can you provide a brief background on Urban Forestry Commission and speak to Alicia's qualifications?

Yes, I can.

And Alicia is here with us today also.

So yeah, thank you, Chair Strauss and committee members.

Happy to be here advancing this appointment.

I'm Patty Bakker with the Urban Forestry Policy Advisor with the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

So in this role, I support the Urban Forestry Commission, which was established by ordinance in 2009 with the purpose of advising the mayor and city council concerning the establishment of policy and regulations governing the protection, management, and conservation of trees and vegetation in the city of Seattle.

The Urban Forestry Commission is composed of 13 members, six of which are appointed by the mayor, six are appointed by city council, and one is elected by the commission.

The members represent a wide range of expertise, including natural resource-based disciplines such as arborist and wildlife biologists, as well as disciplines such as public health and environmental justice.

So really a wide range.

Position two, which is the subject of this appointment, is the urban ecologist position.

And as you mentioned, Chair Strauss, this is a mayor-appointed position.

and we're pleased today to put forward for your consideration Alicia Kellogg as appointee for this position.

Alicia will be serving the remainder of a three year term ending March 31st, 2026. Alicia brings valuable knowledge and experience to the commission at an important time in the commission and the community tackling issues such as climate change, environmental justice, excuse me, and tree protection needs.

So Alicia's here today, and I'll provide a brief introduction for her and then let her offer any additional information and answer any questions council members have.

So Alicia Kellogg received a Master of Landscape Architecture from the University of Washington, as well as a Bachelor of Science in Technical Communication and a Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics.

She currently works as a Duwamish Basin Steward for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.

As a conservation professional and licensed landscape architect, she has experience designing and managing urban landscapes that balance ecological and social goals.

And as a member of the commission, Alicia would strive to ensure that urban forestry policies and strategies are developed through a collaborative and inclusive process that involves all stakeholders.

And she is committed to working with the commission to develop solutions that balance the needs of the environment, the economy, and the community.

So again, Alicia is here, and I will let her provide any other additional information.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Alicia Kellogg.

My pronouns are she, her.

Thank you so much for letting me speak in front of you today.

As Patty said, I have a lot of experience as a landscape architect.

I also cut my teeth doing conservation, salmon habitat restoration.

on a field crew for many years.

And I've been a resident of Seattle since 2004. I strongly believe that nature and cities don't have to be totally separate things.

They can live in harmony with each other.

If we work together, if we think about what the needs are of our rivers, of our streams, of our wildlife and the needs of our community, I think that those don't have to be oppositional to each other.

And I'm really excited and grateful for this opportunity for this appointment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alicia.

I can tell you, you're a person after my own heart, working with the Washington Conservation Corps.

I was a member of the Northwest Youth Corps in high school, and then also with AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps, where we did a lot of these similar types of projects.

I think your comments right there, that nature and cities do not have to collide, we can partner together, is a completely accurate statement.

I think your perspective on this board will be welcomed.

Can you speak just a little bit?

I see you're the Green Start Program Coordinator for King County DRNP, were, and now you're in the Duwamish Basin as a steward.

Can you share just a couple quick highlights of what you think is going well and how that will help your perspective on the Urban Forestry Commission?

Yeah, of course, those are great questions.

The Green Start program at King County was a kind of a green jobs program that was funded through American Rescue Plan Act funds to try to hire unhoused folks who lived in King County into a green job.

So we were training them in ecological restoration, primarily in urban areas and unincorporated areas.

And it was a really interesting, you know, we had a lot of struggles, but it was one of those experiences that really shows you the way that You know I live in Fremont and I went to the University of Washington and I'm surrounded by a lot of people who are like me and there are a lot of people who live in this city and who live in this county who experience the city very differently and for whom the environment for urban ecology that's a daily reality they're living in that every single day and.

Knowing that there are people who are directly affected by water quality, because now in my role as the Duwamish Basin Steward, because they fish out of the Duwamish River, which is a super fun site and which has contamination and which has a rendering plant and which has smeltering plants and all these other things, knowing that there are people who live their lives way more directly connected to our city and to the environmental impacts that we make on our city.

has been really perspective altering for me.

I think that the more we can remind ourselves that there are people who are disproportionately impacted and not because of statistics, but because of relationship building and because of getting to know the people around us in our community, the better we can make decisions that benefit everyone equitably.

Wow.

Couldn't have said it better.

Well said, you know what I know about folks who have been part of conservation cores, whether it's Northwest Youth Corps, AmeriCorps, Washington Conservation Corps, Seattle Conservation Corps.

Corps members are tough as nails, and so we're excited to have you here.

I'll put in my annual and regular plug about Seattle Conservation Corps.

It sounds like it's very similar to the Green Start program.

Any and all opportunities to expand our ability to provide jobs, job projects, that is, because we were able to double the size of the Seattle Conservation Corps with our most recent Metropolitan Parks District plant.

So Alicia, we're so excited to have you.

Thank you for your volunteer service to our city and all your work for our county.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments?

No.

Seeing none.

Thank you very much.

Glad to have someone tough as nails joining.

Patty, any final comments?

No.

Just again, we're excited about providing Alicia as the appointee for this position, and looking forward to Alicia starting her term as commissioner pending your confirmation.

Wonderful.

With that, I'm gonna move recommendation of appointment, recommend a confirmation of appointment 02597. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointment 02597. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Aye.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Appointment 02597 passes.

Thank you again for your willingness to serve on the advisory board.

Your appointment will be sent to full council for final vote on July 11th, 2023. You don't need to attend that meeting.

And I look forward to seeing you in Fremont.

With that, thank you, Patty.

With that, our final item on the agenda today is a briefing and discussion on Resolution 32097, which is a resolution to endorse freight transportation in industrial and maritime areas.

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

Item nine, Resolution 32097, Resolution for Freight Transportation in Industrial and Maritime Areas for Briefing and Discussion.

Thank you.

This is a resolution that was intended to partner and be passed at the same time as the Maritime and Industrial Zoning changes.

We had a couple of hiccups there, so we are bringing it up for a second time now.

We are still seeking additional feedback from stakeholders and partners, and we plan to pass this in September.

We've already received additional feedback that has not been included in this resolution, and so we will be making updates, and I'll be sending this information around to colleagues.

At this point, though, we are joined by Lish Whitson from Council Central staff to brief us on this resolution.

Mr. Whitson, please.

Thanks, and I've got a super short presentation on this.

Just as a reminder, at your last meeting, you saw a very brief resolution that captured the ideas that were put forward by the Industrial Maritime Strategy Council.

related to transportation.

They called for improvements to the movement of goods and people and making transit and freight networks better, improving last mile connections and advocating for tunnel alignment for Ballard and Inner Bay light rail extension.

The resolution as introduced expands on those ideas and provides some more specific actions to implement that strategy, including analyzing plans and projects for impact on all transportation modes, including freight, continuing to advocate for the light rail extensions, including in Ballard Tunnel, reporting every two years on non-industrial development in the manufacturing industrial centers, and looking at transportation impacts from that non-industrial development.

Considering safety impacts in permit review, particularly of non-industrial projects that are proposed for locations in the manufacturing industrial centers, to look for ways to mitigate transportation safety issues that might arise through increased pedestrian and bicycle activity related to those new facilities.

designating freight-only lanes that can provide essential connections between port and highway facilities, increasing funding for pavement maintenance, and supporting Vision Zero projects in industrial areas.

And that's a brief summary of the resolution.

Thank you.

And colleagues, I'm going to actually share screen now and just walk us through this.

That was the high level.

You want to continue?

Yes.

Legislation text.

Proof council members can do work too.

Sharing my screen right now, just walking through so everyone can see this on Seattle Channel.

This is exactly what Lish just said with more words.

So I'm not gonna read through this all.

Talking about the mix, talking about the providing quality jobs that are not accessible, that are accessible without four-year college degrees and have apprenticeships.

where they are, the importance for access to these quality jobs, the economic contributions of these jobs, as well as Seattle's complete streets, because freight is important to the basic economy of the city, as unique right-of-way needs, benefits to our regional, state, and national economy, and some comments about the Maritime Advisory Council work there.

Then it being resolved that we need to analyze these transportation plans, industrial sub-area plans, programs, design changes, improve the movement of workers and goods, improve these last mile connections, identify priority transportation projects, prioritize those projects to ensure goods are moving in an efficient, safe, predictable, and sustained manner.

identifying funding strategies, continuing advocating for the light rail tunnel.

regulatory impact analysis that we've talked about for non-industrial uses, site development analysis for non-industrial uses, and designating freight-only lanes to provide essential connections between port facilities and interstate highways.

It is really important to me.

I've been a big advocate of bus and freight lanes.

Bus and freight lanes could be used here, although we don't have a lot of buses.

But again, we have bus lanes in other places where there's not a lot of freight, so it could work.

What is really critical to me is that we have routes from our port onto our freeways and in our other industrial uses, whether it's for space technologies or other manufacturing industries that are in our industrial zones, that there there's a predictable amount of time for the goods to travel, that we're not bottlenecked by non-industrial uses in industrial spaces, and that we support this industrial economy by providing this type of predictability.

So that's where I'm coming from on this.

I know that what we have here is a real interesting regional asset, that we have the Western end of I-90, that feeds directly into our port.

And even those last couple blocks can get bottlenecked from time to time.

So I'm going to stop sharing screen now and just see, colleagues, do you have any questions, comments, or concerns at this time?

We'll have another opportunity in September.

We may have two opportunities in September, and I'd love to receive any and all feedback on this.

Look forward to digging in.

Great.

With more than enough time, I think, Lish, do you have anything else that you'd like to add here?

No, thank you.

Wonderful.

So we'll bring this back in September.

Again, in September, we will have two meetings.

One is a special meeting, one is a regularly scheduled meeting, and we'll do the same in December.

If items come up between now and September that need to be addressed in our Land Use Committee, we will hold a meeting.

I do not know of any time-sensitive items, and that's part of why we held another special meeting today.

So with that, any items for the good of the order?

Seeing none, this concludes the Thursday, July 6th, 2023 Special Land Use Committee meeting.

The next Land Use Committee meeting is on September 13th, 2023 at 2 p.m.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.