Good afternoon.
The September 11, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee will come to order.
It's 12.02 p.m.
I'm Abel Pacheco, chair of the committee.
We have three items on the agenda today.
A discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119600 and amendments, which updates our city's SEPA policies.
A discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119597, which revises our incentives to preserve open space.
And a briefing and discussion on Resolution 31904, which relates to our second bascule bridge in Montlake.
The next regularly scheduled PLEZ meeting on Wednesday, September 18th has been canceled.
The next meeting will be a special meeting on Tuesday, September 24th at noon.
Before we begin, if there's no objection, I will adopt today's agenda.
Hearing none, the agenda is adopted.
At this time, we will take public comment on items that appear before today's agenda.
We have 10 minutes today for public comment.
Speakers are limited up to two minutes of public comment.
If a speaker's comment exceeds the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.
Speakers are asked to begin their comments by identifying themselves and the agenda item they wish to address.
As a reminder, public comment is limited to items that are on the agenda or within the purview of this committee.
First on our list is Matt Hutchins, followed by Alina Perez.
Hello.
I want to address two things with regards to the SEPA today.
One is that SEPA has been incredibly powerful, and I don't want to take anything away from the environmental protections that it has provided.
But over time, the protections that are meant or that are contained in SEPA have been largely functionally equivalently duplicated by Seattle's code.
So air quality, construction air quality, noise, public safety, Environmentally critical areas, energy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, are also covered by Seattle Municipal Code.
And so the need for SEFA to do the same thing is redundant.
The second thing that I want to point out is that with regards to Amendment 1, the way that it's drafted is it's nearly impossible to craft a zoning map that would actually make sense.
because it's based on Appendix B in the 2030 Seattle Growth and Equity Guide, which is actually 28 maps covering a range of factors.
The idea that you're gonna be able to have some sort of a bright line between high and low displacement risk, high and low access to opportunity would, who knows how all those different maps get weighted.
And so you'd end up with, in order to avoid an appeal for the duplex triplex zoning, you would end up with this kind of Swiss cheese of areas of high and low opportunity.
It wouldn't be just like one section that would be excluded from the appeal, one that would be included.
it's practically impossible to create this map that doesn't, that would be impervious to an appeal, and therefore I don't think it's a good faith effort to actually address either environmental protection or displacement in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
So I would hope that that doesn't pass out of committee.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Alina Perez, followed by Colleen McClure.
Hello, my name is Elena Perez with Puget Sound SAGE.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the SEPA appeal process.
Puget Sound SAGE is an organization that is focused on building coalitions with those most impacted by policy and decision-making to ensure that we have community controlled development, climate justice and good jobs in our communities.
And we know that that is your interest as well.
At this point, we don't stand in support of the changes that are being proposed here and we don't stand in opposition.
Where we do stand and where we have always stood is on the side of communities that are most impacted by development with the least power and ability to hold developers accountable.
And loosely defined on the growth and equity map, that would be the high risk of displacement with low opportunity.
But more specifically within those neighborhoods, it's the black, brown, indigenous folks, low income individuals, and marginalized members of the LGBTQ community.
We know that the SEPA tool is not ideal.
We absolutely agree with you on the SEPA appeal process.
From an equity standpoint, it is incredibly expensive, it is very narrow in scope, and it forces community members into meetings that really aren't designed for them, and end up feeling very exclusive and demoralizing.
So we understand that the SEPA appeal process isn't ideal and our question for you and for other council members as we continue in this process is what are you going to replace this with for those communities, for those individuals.
That's the community we want, that's the conversation we want to engage with you in as this process continues and really look deeply at if developers are going to have this streamlined process what do we get in return.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Colleen McClure.
Hi, I'm Colleen McAleer from the Lower Hearst Community Club and I represent our community today in regard to SEPA and also comment on the second bascule bridge.
First comments on SEPA, we've sent a letter in already, but we are concerned that this is a rush proposal to eliminate SEPA requirements.
And the purpose is really none other than to reduce the opportunity for impacted stakeholders to comment on land use issues.
Collaboration among parties, developers, stakeholders, oftentimes is the best result.
And having an opportunity that is guaranteed by the SEPA process to be eliminated is very short-sighted.
Over the past five years, the City Council has enacted sweeping changes to land use policies and increased housing over 30% of units.
Now, most of these up-zoned areas have not even been developed, and we have not even begun to measure the results and study them.
So the LCC requests that the city wait until a few years passed through this process before they begin to discuss changing SEPA regulations.
After all, all of these up zones were done with the guidance, knowing that SEPA would be an intervener.
And then, finally, the City Council is well known for taking the lead in the environment, and these changes do not accomplish that goal.
As a matter of fact, it gives the carte blanche for the developers to bulldoze the EPA protections, and we urge you to stop this process on this change.
Secondly, we do urge you on the second Basco Bridge, as I talked to Councilman Pacheco about this for a long time, It's been considered they don't need a second basket bridge in Seattle, and yes, we do.
We've got a tremendous amount of institutional growth around the Montlake interchange, and we need protection for bikes and transit to accomplish getting to that area.
In addition, the east side is rerouting their buses along the Montlake Triangle, and they're going to need capacity to do that effectively.
Thanks very much.
Thank you, Colleen.
Next on our list is Ray Timm, followed by Megan Cruz.
Hi, I'm Ray Tim.
I'm a citizen.
I live in Wallingford, also a scientist.
I've been working on salmon recovery and habitat recovery for the last 25 years.
I'm concerned about the city's apparent lack of coherence with respect to stormwater permit requirements and how this process just seems to be moving forward without consideration for The factors that we know contribute to stormwater quality problems and water quantity problems.
And how, it seems to me that it makes really good sense to slow down and produce some modeling or some data that actually show that increasing density within these already built neighborhoods won't exacerbate that problem to a point where we end up in some kind of failure with the Clean Water Act requirements under our stormwater permit.
that we're already not meeting and some additional planning for how we'll handle the increased runoff associated with higher density building.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Megan Cruz followed by Ace Houston.
Thank you.
I'm Megan Cruz.
I'm here today to ask the committee, or just you yourself, Chairman, if you're not going to be joined by anyone else today, to please table CB119-600.
There are many reasons to ask for this, but mostly because it's a complicated, wide-ranging bill that's being rushed through committee and hasn't been thoroughly vetted.
It was introduced just a month ago after committee members met with just a single constituency, that would be the affordable housing community.
Those people saw this as environmental appeals as the only way to obstruct affordable housing.
Other than opinion and a few stories, there's been no data to support this claim, and I'd like to see it.
I don't want to obstruct affordable housing.
Monday's hearing brought a crowd out of people from many backgrounds.
Many who objected to the bill voiced legitimate concerns about different aspects of the legislation and suggested improvements and how it could be made more equitable.
After the hearing people reached out to the committee asking for more time to meet with them and explain positions and try to find some areas where they could improve the bill and no one's heard from them.
And it's not just the public that's been left out of this process.
Throughout city government there are volunteer boards and dedicated professionals working every day to find ways to avoid or mitigate a development design that will adversely impact the environment.
They have had hard data and studies conducted.
They can give you specific examples of what works and what doesn't, and their work should be reflected in this bill.
Yet, this bill gives only decision-making to one entity, that's SDCI.
I don't think any other department was consulted.
There's been an amendment to include them, but that's after the fact.
We elect our leaders to listen to us and do the right thing.
We may disagree, but if you listen, you feel that you have a stake in the process, and that's not what's happened here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Ace Houston, followed by Jeanette Way.
Hello, my name is Ace, and I'm a queer renter of color living on Capitol Hill.
I come here in two capacities, as an architect who works for myself and as a person of color, and come here today specifically after watching the previous meeting on item one, super reform, to ask that this be passed without amendment one.
As one of the few people of color speaking here today, I please ask that the committee allow me extra time to make my whole statement.
62 units.
When I first moved to Seattle from my home state of Texas, I had the privilege of being involved in a project that had been started in 2015 to allow 62 units and a grocery store into a very wealthy neighborhood here in the city.
Today, towards the end of 2019, that project still waits to begin construction as a group of wealthy, mostly white homeowners have appealed the project for environmental concerns.
A city that is facing down a housing crisis before the recent announcement that Amazon is to hire another 10,000 individuals before Expedia completed its move near Inner Bay.
cannot ignore the larger ramifications of parsing out housing at a level lower than the city had before the recession.
And the change cannot simply be led by companies that have the money to face legal action, as I have seen happen time and time again since I moved here.
I have been studying and practicing architecture for over 12 years and recognize that when we build more housing in cities, we preserve pristine forests, precious temperate forests that are irreplaceable, in addition to our beautiful farms and pastoral lands from development.
The grain factor for new projects in Seattle exists for a reason.
I am here to ask my Seattle neighbors to trust us as design professionals who have trained and practiced for many years to lead the change in creating beautiful and resilient neighborhoods that are greener than they currently are, and while creating space for more neighbors.
Because we do not simply design for beauty, we design for community.
And as a person of color raised by a single mother, a teacher who taught me the importance of education, I stand before you to specifically condemn Amendment 1. I am a prime example of what happens when you provide truly affordable housing in areas of high economic opportunity.
Because I went to one of the best public schools in Texas that surprisingly had the most apartment complexes in the school district and had the opportunity to be near my part-time job as well as parks and open space.
I moved here specifically because I saw a city that recognizes a need for growth and embraces innovation while honoring its communities of color and its queer and trans communities while addressing its past wrongs.
Amendment one continues the preservation of single family zoning, exclusionary zoning that I've lived and learned and loathed.
An implicit continuation of the racist practices of redlining of a time that some of this room have lived through but seem to forget.
Change is happening here, but I refuse to stand by as wealthy homeowners ask questions of who will look into their yards, while my siblings of color ask where they will live.
Can I ask you to please conclude?
Yes.
There is no such thing as piecemealing progress.
We need radical institutional change that gets at the heart of all forms of sustainability, economic, environmental, and social, and I believe that's our sustainable reform.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've been joined by Councilmember Herbold.
And I just want to say for the record that I've removed Amendment 1 from the agenda.
We will not be discussing it today because there's some more work that needs to be done before we continue to discuss it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Jeanette Way followed by Robert Seidman.
Good afternoon, Council.
My name is Janet Way.
I am here representing Save the Market Entrance Group, and we stand opposed to this ordinance that you're bringing up.
We believe that SEPA is a landmark environmental law that was put in place by our state in order to protect the environment and protect resources such as salmon.
Seattle has salmon swimming through it, and it is your obligation as a council to protect those resources.
Therefore, you must stand to oppose this legislation and protect the SEPA, which is the opportunity for the public and citizens to actually become involved and speak for those resources.
So I also want to say that we would like to place the Seattle Times editorial board page today in the record by reference.
To quote them, it says right here, that you are trying to gut the bedrock environmental protection rules and reduce opportunities for civic engagement.
Don't be fooled by their greenwashing.
It does the environment no favors to weaken the State Environmental Policy Act as proposed by Bill 119-600.
This will mostly benefit real estate investors trying to further cash in on the Amazon boom.
We urge you to reject this proposal.
Please stand up for the public's right to comment, the public's right to appeal, the public's right to be involved, and protect the environment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Robert Seidman, followed by Steve Rustello.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bob Seidman.
I am also a member of Save the Market Entrance.
SEPA is the most comprehensive tool our neighbors have to preserve and improve their environment.
I'm also a father and I'd like to see affordable housing in Seattle.
As a board member of Save the Market Entrance, we embrace the process and believe me, it's not a walk in the park.
The appeal process is not abused by the selfish rich.
This is a misconception of the uninitiated.
Only true believers would commit to spending the time to educate themselves and their neighbors, raise the funds to hire land-use professionals armed with the expertise to level the playing field against an army of lawyers and consultants hired by developers.
Our organization is experienced enough to know that battling to call attention to projects with SEPA compliance problems is painstaking work.
Save the Market Entrance represents 88,000 individuals who have expressed concern for Seattle's future livability.
Please do improve land use code and processes, but please take the time to do it right.
Don't rob the public of its ability to provide oversight.
Do not destroy what we have without providing better.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And next on our list is Steve Rustello.
Well, you made me remember the old, old, old reading list.
I don't know if it was junior high or high school.
1984 and Animal Farm.
As we talk about environmentalists for destroying the Environmental Protection Act.
Now, the city has long wanted to be rid of it, and it came about not from politicians.
It came from citizens, because guess what?
The citizens believed the politicians weren't getting it right.
So this is another way to strip people out of the process.
Now, design review used to be a process where you looked at the entire site, you had many things.
Matter of fact, most everything on the table, one by one has been pointed out, were taking citizens out of the process.
those people, those filthy citizens who don't understand development.
I think one developer before you many months ago said that he didn't like things going before judges because they just didn't understand land use, like you do.
I think that it is time we bring citizens back into the process, and the fallacy that citizens are all horrible, especially if they live in houses, if they are white, if they are old, is a fallacy.
Let's take a look at the individual situation and not be prejudiced.
Let's look at the situation.
eliminating the last backstop, which SEPA is, we should be doing far more in the front end, and we would have far fewer problems.
Now, I'm just about through, so you can let Mike know he can come out, because normally in the district, if somebody asks him a question that's hard, he leaves.
Unfortunately, that hasn't happened here.
But he can come back and vote.
Thank you, and I'm pleased, I ask that we remain respectful of each other, whether or not we're present, and of my colleagues.
That said, I want to move to our first item on the agenda.
Our first item is a discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119600, which amends our SEPA policies.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda item one, Council Bill 119600, an ordinance relating to environmental review, amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify timelines and the content of administrative appeals, to authorize the development of director's rules to clarify the content of environmental documents, and to make corrections and technical amendments.
This is our third meeting in the past week about this proposal.
I know we've all heard about it quite a bit.
Lish, for the viewing public, could you please give us one more quick description of what the bill does?
Sure.
This legislation updates the city's regulations related to the State Environmental Policy Act.
It recognizes the importance of SEPA and looks for improvements to existing processes.
It incorporates new state regulations.
built on best practices from other jurisdictions, and it addresses some confusing code sections.
There are three different types of exemptions and waivers that are incorporated from recent state laws.
A number of different types of zoning changes would be exempt from SEPA appeals under House Bill 1923, which was adopted this spring, including actions such as adopting sub-area plans, rezoning areas near frequent transit service, or changing single-family zones to allow a wider range of housing types.
It builds on the idea that projects should only, or proposals should only be reviewed once under SEPA and states that if a project is consistent with and implementing the comprehensive plan and has been studied under an environmental review for the comprehensive plan, then that proposal should be exempt from SEPA because it's already been studied once.
And it incorporates infill development exemptions that currently apply in downtown Seattle and our other urban centers and applies them in our urban villages.
Residential projects with up to 200 units and small commercial structures would be exempt from SEPA review, but there is a a separate level for parking.
So projects that have 40 or more parking spaces are still subject to CEPA review.
Projects with 40 or more parking spaces?
Yes.
It provides for the Department of Construction Inspections to develop director's rules to help guide environmental the development of environmental documents based on best practices.
It provides timelines for the hearing examiner's appeals so that there is more clarity about when an appeal will be completed.
And then it makes some corrections related to economic analysis, clarifying that because state law doesn't require economic analysis, and in fact says that economic analysis is not a environmental impact that should be studied under SEPA, that it isn't subject to SEPA appeal.
It removes a section related to the issuance of permits that conflicts with provisions in the Land Use Code.
and relies on clear guidance in the Land Use Code about when permits should be issued.
There's been a lot of discussion of this.
State law and the Land Use Code are clear that the city cannot make a decision until SEPA appeals have been resolved.
And so this section doesn't, this action doesn't conflict with that clear guidance under SEPA
I just want to ask you to clarify that a little bit, because I think there's a lot of confusion about that.
The impact of the legislation, it appears, gives the green light for the project to continue, whereas it sounds like you're saying that state law is clear that that is not allowed.
It's not allowed, and we do have language in the land use code that provides clear direction about when a permit should be issued.
and states that all appeals need to be resolved, except for appeals to the courts, but all city-level appeals need to be resolved before a permit can be issued.
So where's the confusion about the impact of this bill coming from?
Well, this bill doesn't include the land-use code change, the existing language in the land-use code.
So I think what people are seeing is language being struck out in the SEPA chapter, and they're not seeing the existing language that would continue forward.
And that is section 2376.028C, if anyone wants to look at it.
I think you wish.
And finally, it clarifies that the legislative department may, if it chooses, be a lead agency on SEPA analysis for proposals that the council or other parts of the legislative department promulgate.
Thank you, Lish.
We've had discussion on this, and we've had a public hearing as well.
Given that we have a bit of a time constraint, I want to make sure that we can get out of here hopefully before 1.30.
Are there any pressing questions that my colleagues may have for Lish?
Just so everybody knows, we have another committee meeting that will be starting, I believe, at 2 o'clock.
So I want to be mindful of that as well.
Yes, sort of.
Councillor Herbold.
I don't know if this is the right time to ask them.
Thank you for the clarification.
That projects that propose parking spaces greater than 40 spaces will still be appealable.
We've been contacted by a resident of the city who has appealed projects based on the number of parking spots that were provided and done so successfully.
So, it's good to know that those types of appeals would still be able to go forward.
I think, whereas I really strongly support the goals of this legislation to minimize the timelines associated with these appeals, I keep hearing from folks this legislation as proposed is actually going to backfire on the city and it's actually going harm our ability to minimize the time taken with appeals.
And from somebody who is acting now as the city's hearing examiner has expressed those concerns, and somebody who has been a hearing examiner for a really long period of time, Mr. Ted Hunter, And the argument they've made is that what happens in a SEPA appeal actually helps the city in subsequent GMA board appeals and shoreline master plan or shoreline board appeals and subsequent, in some cases, judicial appeals.
And so that there are corrections that can occur as a result of a SEPA appeal that actually strengthens our case.
in subsequent appeals.
Our own hearing examiner has argued that the 2018 workload was an anomaly.
And, you know, again, the concern is that, you know, establishing a timeline of 150 days is actually too long and so that there's a lot of concern it seems like that the things that we're trying to do in this bill are actually going to result in an opposite outcome from removing barriers to providing housing in our city.
And I just, I'm concerned, there's a long list of questions that I have and I don't think this is necessarily the right time to ask them.
But I don't know that we've done the analysis to specifically ask, you know, of those SEPA appeals.
Which ones of them resulted in subsequent positive outcomes for the city because something was appealed?
And I know it's been said that the SEPA process has been misused.
I think there's some question about how the city internally is managing that process.
I think we could learn a lot from dialing down more into what has happened each step of the way.
So I'm not asking, I suppose, any specific questions that I want answers to right now, but I am signaling some broader concerns about whether or not the legislation before us is actually going to accomplish our goals.
Council Member O'Brien?
Yeah, I'd love to engage in a conversation because I do feel it will meet our goals.
A couple of comments.
I appreciate you reaching out to the hearing examiner, and I appreciate his response.
Clearly, there's been an uptick in CEQA appeals in recent years, and I think it's probably premature to consider, is that an anomaly or is it the new normal?
But there's a sense that I have that this is the new normal.
I think more and more Organizations are becoming more and more familiar with this tool, and it's usually used by folks regardless of where you are on a side of an issue.
If you want to delay a project, this is a great way to do it.
And we're seeing more and more of that.
And I don't think it's a bump in 2018 and go away.
Yes, MHA was a big one for sure.
but we have one about transportation impact fees.
It is approaching past 10 months now.
It's a fairly simple thing.
We had backyard cottages.
The Burt Gilman continues to roll on, you know, a couple different appeals over the decades on Fort Lawton.
And, you know, we are going to continue to be, I believe, aggressively trying to find new housing options in this town.
Some folks will be opposed to that, and I believe we'll continue to see more and more appeals.
And so, again, we're not taking away the right to appeal.
One of the things that's been frustrating for me, because I agree with what you said about that there are benefits to having this process as opposed, because we don't, state law doesn't require that we have a hearing examiner process or an appeal process at city.
State law requires, my understanding, that there is a process through state law that they can go to the state courts and resolve it after we pass something to see where it's in violation.
And I think there's a huge benefit to us being proactive about that, the instances you cite about how that, helps us develop the evidence on whatever side with someone that has a little more expertise in land use than someone that the courts may have and establish that body and that record to be used later is a good thing to do.
I've seen numerous times where these challenges drag on.
Oftentimes it seems because, one, attorneys on either side will continue to ask for more and more discovery and those types of things which drag it on.
Oftentimes we've seen where attorneys are on vacation or the individual's on vacation, and the idea of putting a timeline is to say, hey, this is not, you know, if you don't like what happens at the hearing examiner, you can still go to court and do all those things.
And let's say, can we refine this process to make it a little more streamlined?
As the hearing examiner says himself, in a lot of cases, 120 days is too long.
This doesn't say it has to be 120 days, so it's not going to make it longer.
It just says, on these long ones, shorten down.
If someone needs to get a different attorney because the attorney's on vacation, I would say that's their job to get an attorney who's available to meet our timeline, not our job to say, why don't we extend this another three months and another three months to do that.
So, I don't see how this hurts us or backfires as far as timing.
So, you did acknowledge that the SEPA process can sometimes produce positive outcomes from the city, for the city.
Can you talk a little bit about how, why it is you don't think this legislation will harm that reality?
Because I believe that within a 120 or 150 day window, we can have.
Oh, not the timelines.
On the things that we're making, we're creating categorical exemptions for.
Oh, on those things?
Yeah.
I'm talking about the timeline, sorry.
Yeah.
So the things we are creating categorical exemptions, what I'm saying is these things are part of our policy that have already been vetted.
Those would not have a process, and I agree with those policy initiatives to say.
So when we get sued, not under a hearing examiner.
Right.
Well, no.
So those are.
We don't have the benefit of having gone through people.
My understanding is that's not the case.
For all of the categorical exemptions that are part of this bill, environmental review will have been done.
The question is, are you reviewing it as part of the city's comprehensive plan, or are you reviewing it on a project by project basis, or on a non-project proposal by non-project proposal basis?
So there are two different categories of categorical exemptions included in the bill.
The first is projects with 200 or fewer units in urban villages where we haven't already met the Comprehensive Plan growth estimate.
If we're within that range of the Comprehensive Plan growth estimate, then that amount of growth in that area has already been analyzed.
And the specific zoning provisions have been analyzed because we've analyzed that when the zoning went into place.
So the idea is as long as you're within that comp plan estimate, we've analyzed that growth, we understand it, we've made the decision that we will be able to accommodate that growth.
On the non-project side, it includes a provision from state law that says that if there's a proposal that implements a comp plan, that is required to implement the comp plan, and that comp plan has been through environmental review, then it's categorically exempt.
In order for the city to, with a straight face, say that has been studied, the comp plan environmental review will need to be detailed enough so that we can show a direct line between the proposal, generally a zoning change, and the comp plan environmental analysis.
So again, the comp plan environmental analysis will have studied that change and the legislation that would be categorically exempt would be implementing that change and would be part of what had already been studied.
But it sounds like you're saying that the only – putting aside the non-project-based categorical exemptions and focusing only on the project-based ones, it sounds like you're saying the only thing that we're looking at is the density question, not any of the other things that we mitigate, we use SEPA to mitigate.
And people sue on all those things.
Yeah.
Attachment one to the legislation includes an inventory of all of the other ways that we mitigate the elements of the environment.
And that's basically a statement of how we have addressed each of those elements of the environment that are studied under SEPA.
So, for example, with stormwater, which came up this morning, or afternoon, I guess it is, we have requirements that are in place today that require onsite detention and retention of stormwater.
They're not in place for existing buildings.
What we've heard from our stormwater experts is that New buildings do a much better job, even if there's more lot coverage, of reducing impacts on combined sewer overflows than letting the existing buildings stay in place.
So we have energy code requirements that go beyond the national and international standards.
And new buildings are significantly better in terms of reducing energy demand than existing buildings, particularly my own house.
And so, as was mentioned, we've built over time a number of different measures to address areas of the environment.
And I'm sure we will keep ratcheting up those requirements.
So, there are no, there would not be an issue with projects, not the policy side.
we're not going to lose the opportunity to cure defects in, through a SEPA review.
Is that, there aren't going to, it sounds like you're saying that the city isn't going to make any mistakes that we could use the SEPA appeal to fix.
And I'm just, I, without having more of a deep dive of these past, SEPA appeals in comparison to what things we're creating categorical exemptions for.
I'm just, again, really concerned about this legislation actually resulting in more lawsuits or more losses in court and longer timelines.
I don't have data on all of the projects that have been through SEPA, but of the projects that have been appealed, a quarter had at the hearing examiner a quarter were either remanded or asked to go back for additional analysis.
I looked this morning at all of the project level actions.
Out of 30, let me actually look at my notes, out of 32 project level actions, appeals, only two of them would be exempt under these proposed exemptions.
So we're talking about two out of however many permits the city has issued over the last 10 years would be categorically exempt and are not today.
And so in those instances, in those two instances, was our case strengthened?
I don't know if they went to the courts.
One of them was Livable Finney Appeal, and it's not the rezone that you heard, but it's the one across the street from the contract rezone that you recently heard with the setback issue.
And then the other one was a Lehigh project in Ballard.
So that was an affordable housing project with community services that was delayed because of CEPA appeals.
Why was that?
I thought those are already categorical exemptions, low-income housing projects.
No, I don't think there's a...
Didn't we create a categorical exemption for low-income housing in 2012?
No, in 2012 in the legislation.
For senior housing and for...
no?
I don't think it's senior housing.
No, I thought we did it for both senior housing and affordable housing.
because I thought we were given the authority by the state, and then we did move forward with some categorical exemptions, but not others?
It's the one with the, it's the project that has been billed.
It includes the urban rest stop, and so it may have been because of the urban rest stop facility that they were able to appeal.
I'm not sure.
So for me, Well, first of all, let me make sure I have clarity on the process.
SEPA is a state law, and it has a set of requirements on what process we have to go through and what an appeal process looks like.
And then on top of that, we you know, we put our hearing examiner and allow an additional appeal process prior to that through the hearing examiner at the city.
And I think we're fairly unique in that, but probably not totally unique.
Most large jurisdictions in Washington have the hearing examiner.
Great.
When something is categorically exempt from SEPA, regardless of whether they're hearing examiner process or not, that would mean to me that there is not a CEPA appeal process to King County Superior Court.
So by the fact that we skip our process that would have helped us in the Superior Court process, it's categorically exempt so that process doesn't exist on the back end where our front end stuff would have helped.
So the CEPA Because the state has said this is no longer required to go through SEPA.
We can do whatever additional process we want on our end, but when we're done with it, it doesn't go there.
And for me, this narrow slice of projects that we've given authority to are large policy projects.
They don't think people should have the option.
You know, I don't want the next Cheryl Chao court to be tied up for six months in a process and delayed that.
I want to see those things go forward.
So.
And I agree.
I'm just concerned that in taking this action that we are going to be inviting more lawsuits rather than SEPA appeals that then help us later down the line.
But again, the only time they can have the lawsuit for SEPA is if it's not categorically exempt and then there still is a hearing exam.
No, there's still a judicial process that folks can go through, is that?
Not if it's categorically exempt and not if the waiver has been, or not if appeals have been eliminated.
So there's no, the GMA board process and the shorelines board process, those are all contingent on having a SEPA process?
They would be on other topics not related to SIPA.
So if there's a rezone, that can be appealed based on whether or not it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, for example.
And I'm not pretending that I have any expertise in this area.
I'm reading the responses from people who have acted as hearing examiners.
And the Comment of a hearing examiner in over 40 cities and counties for 30 years is that appeals of environmental review documents provide citizen oversight of agency actions, and an appeal will cure the defects of agency review, lead to a better informed decision, and seldom, if ever, does an appeal result in a reversal of an agency decision.
Instead, it goes, it can help defend the city in a judicial review.
Councilmember Herbold, since you referenced Ted Hunter, and he's a District 4 resident and good friend, and specifically his email, his email references would ask us as a committee to, if he could probably, use SEPA on SEPA and delay this legislation.
In the short time that that I have been here on the Council, whether that has been for Lawton or the accessory dwelling unit legislation, I have seen firsthand examples of how SEPA has been misused or weaponized to delay projects which we collectively would wish to move forward faster if we could.
I know that there was a Crosscut article last year which referenced the delays with MHA and the SEPA appeal process, which had seven, the delay had conservatively cost 717 units.
For those families and those individuals that are struggling and for those projects to move forward, for me personally, even though that there has been concern about us moving, quote unquote, rushing through this process.
I don't believe we have.
We've gone through a process by which we've taken amendments, taken feedback from the community.
In Ted's email, his feedback has been incorporated in a couple of the amendments that I have proposed where I thought there was legitimacy after working with central staff.
And so we've definitely have gone through, I think, a very, done our due diligence in terms of engagement with the public.
And so, you know, I'm, it's part of the reason that I think we continue to move forward and we keep moving forward.
I acknowledge your concerns and I want you to know that I hear you.
But I think what we're doing, what we're proposing with regards to references to either Ted's email or the Seattle Times article from this morning, you know, we're not gutting environmental protections.
Rather, I think we're responding to what the state has given us from House Bill 1923 to respond accordingly to ensure that we're moving forward as the city continues to grow.
Hearing Examiner Vancel addresses the MHA hearing and the timelines, and I think identifies the need for more of an internal look at the reasons for why that process took so long.
He writes, in the end, the city requested several additional months to respond to discovery requests from appellants.
All parties, including the city, had scheduled conflicts for the representatives and witnesses that delayed conclusion of the hearing.
I just reached out to the hearing examiner yesterday, just received this today.
I want to just state again, this is not about my lack of support for the goals and the objectives, and I'm not making an appeal for more time for the sake of more time.
I just think there's more analysis that needs to occur.
But I'm not going to hold us up any longer, because I recognize we have time constraints.
I think there's, it's complex for sure.
And I think that folks have a mix of information, some of which is accurate and some of which is inaccurate.
And so I think that's confusing the matter too.
Again, the thing that's been, a couple things have been frustrating to me.
One is just the delays that happen just because people are busy and it takes longer.
The city, you know, I know sometimes the city will be like, well, if they're doing discovery, we need to add more discovery.
And I just think we need to shorten this up and say, look, this isn't the most intense core process.
Almost certainly something as complex as MHA and broad policy like that, I imagine would be, would find a way around these times because it would be necessary and both parties would agree to that.
But something like transportation impact fees that every other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound region has done...
And I support.
...does not need to go through a year-long process.
Similarly, I don't think the backyard cottage legislation was nearly at the scale of MHA.
I think that there will, you know, when things like MHA come along, which may be once a decade or whatever, that's one thing, and there's a path there for parties to agree that that's more complex.
But the idea is for the rest of them, you know, Fort Lawton, let's get those things done, and that's where I think this helps.
We're, where SEPA law still is in fact, in effect, there is still a SEPA appeal process at the city.
We're just saying we want to shorten that timeline.
And the hearing examiner says, for the vast majority of them, that timeline's too long.
We'll do that in less of a time anyways.
This isn't, you know, and be clear, this isn't the hearing examiner being lazy either.
And so, you know, we will, when the hearing examiner is busy, if in fact, if in fact my assumption is correct that this is a new normal, we're going to see more and more appeals, we will need to provide more resources to meet this deadline, which is identified as something we need to work on.
But again, where there is a SEPA process that could play out in the courts, we will still have a hearing examiner process in front of that.
And when we set policy, that says, whether it's in the comp plan or elsewhere, that says, we're gonna go through a process, we're gonna decide what our goals are as a city, that process is appealable, it's a legislative process.
And then there are people that don't like the outcomes of that, I get that.
Then they say, well, we want another process where we can sue again.
It's like, no, we had that process, we made a decision, when we revisit, that's fine, but there shouldn't be two and three layers of appeals that can continue to delay projects.
I think that it's fair to have appeal process And as Lish identified, you know, to the things that we put in the comp plan, that'll be the place where we do it at a big scale.
But then you don't get a second, third, fourth bite at the apple just because you have enough resources to hire attorneys and you can keep delaying this until, you know, they wear us out.
And that's the piece that feels like it's happening so often.
And again, these appeals are coming from They're not coming from low-income communities because they don't have the resources to do it.
And, you know, we may need to figure out how they have access to these tools, too.
But it feels like it's an unfair system that's being used specifically by, you know, a certain class of people.
Again, pro-development people, anti-development people are both using it in my example.
And so it's not so much about that, but it's...
And my personal favorite is using it to delay the bullet center, which is, I think, a jewel of the Pacific Northwest.
in such that you go, how do you use it against the most environmentally sustainable commercial building in the world?
It just, to me, this is where I find agreement with Council Member O'Brien.
It's a tool that's been weaponized, and as such, we want to be both responsive to what the state has allowed us to do, as well as to the environmental organizations who have asked us to respond.
Yeah, I just I don't think we've we've looked at all that we have all the examples of when it's been harmful.
I don't feel like we've done the analysis to be able to make sure that there aren't examples of when it's been helpful to meeting the city's goals and objectives.
Yeah.
I mean, I guess, so that's on the timeline side.
There's examples.
We can look at all those.
And through that process, we've learned things.
And those processes will continue.
And, you know, you could say, like, well, if we took a year on the process instead of 120 days, maybe we'd learn more.
And that's possibly true.
But it's not just on the timeline side.
It's on the exemption side, too.
And so that's fair.
And I, on those areas where we are allowed to have categorical exemption, because the state has authorized it and there's another place where people can appeal, I think that's fine.
I'm comfortable with that.
And there's a tradeoff there, and I get it.
I mean, I think I understand.
So I think we're kind of, we've had robust discussion.
I appreciate it.
Okay, so before we get into the meatier amendments, Lish, I believe you have a substitute amendment to start with?
Yeah.
Could you describe it?
As you know, this is built on state law that was just passed this past spring when the bill was introduced.
That law hadn't been codified yet.
The substitute version 4D basically just adds in the sections of the revised code of Washington that reflect House Bill 1923, and makes a few other very minor technical adjustments.
Okay, so I move to amend Council Bill 119600 by substituting version D4D as shown on the agenda.
Okay.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
Okay, Council Member Herbold, I believe you've
Withdrawn your amendment for the time being I might be bringing back another version of it after working with the stakeholders that I thought I was being responsive to in the letter that I distributed last week from Sightline and future wise and a number of other organizations, so we're still working on it, okay
Amendment number two, Council Member Herbold, would you like to speak to amendment number two?
I would very much.
Thank you.
So amendment number two is an amendment that we discussed last time we got together.
And this amendment simply would, as it relates to drafting rules, would require SDCI to work with other departments that have expertise in the subject area for which they're drafting rules, more or less.
And I would mention that that's standard practice.
Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
Amendment three, it's an amendment that I have proposed based on a community suggestion, Ted Hunter.
This amendment would request that the hearing examiner include opportunities to streamline the appeal process in this 2020 annual report.
I think this amendment is pretty straightforward.
Is there any questions or discussion?
I do have a question.
In the hearing examiner's letter to us, they make reference to the fact that he has made it a priority to...
Actually, he asks us to wait until he has the opportunity to do this, but let's put that aside.
He makes reference to the fact that he's working on the hearing examiner rules of practice and procedure.
And so I'm just wondering whether or not, rather than just designating this work to their annual report, do we want to address the fact that he's already planning on trying to work on some of these issues within their rules and procedures?
It seems like the annual report will come later.
It will.
He's making a commitment to work on rules and procedures now, or has already made that commitment.
Yeah, this goes a little bit farther.
It asks whether there are resources or sections of the code, for example, that are outside of the hearing examiner rules that could be improved.
But yes, after drafting this, we did hear from the hearing examiner that he is planning on updating his rules.
So, I mean, I'm absolutely supportive of this as written, but I just think we might want to, perhaps before full council, think about trying to incorporate what the hearing examiner's comments are.
Yeah, I mean, I just got, received his letter today, so.
So, I'm comfortable just tabling this until, before the full council.
Okay.
I don't mind, I wasn't suggesting not to vote on it.
I'm just thinking that there might be more work that we can do after voting on it.
So, it's whatever your preference.
I'll just withdraw and then come back with additional feedback.
Okay, so moving on to amendment number four.
Let's see, I'm proposing amendment number four likewise after hearing some community response, which is to shorten the appeal window to 60 days rather than 120 days.
That's in the legislation.
I think it finds a sweet spot between appeal windows for project actions which tend to be quicker to 90 days and maintaining the 120 day limit for non-project actions.
Am I missing anything, Lish?
No, just to clarify that it's 90 days.
Oh, 90 days.
My apologies.
Oops.
Any questions?
Sorry, so one more time what this would do.
For project actions or in the land-use world for master-use permits, it would be a 90-day time period that could be extended by 30 days.
For non-project actions or council land-use actions, it would be 120 days.
Got it.
Okay.
Any further questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor, is there a second?
I'll second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Aye.
All those opposed?
Assumptions?
Abstain.
Motion passes.
Amendment number five, hearing examiner's pro tem rules.
Council Member Herbold?
Oh, fantastic, thank you.
So amendment number five just clarifies again, already current practice, but clarifies that pro tem hearing examiners are subject to all the rules that apply already to hearing examiners and deputy hearing examiners.
And those rules include requiring recusal of an examiner who has a conflict of interest and providing for an appellant to seek the disqualification of a hearing exam with a perceived conflict of interest.
Again, these are rules that exist for both the hearing examiner and the deputy hearing examiner, and this clarifies that those rules should also apply to the pro tems.
I am happy to second and support.
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please vote aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes.
Lastly, we have amendment number six.
I'm sorry, I apologize.
We could not get this before the agenda.
This last amendment, it's coming from, it's a suggestion by the Office of Planning and Community Development that would better align some language to match other parts of the city code.
It would also change language by delegating lead agency status under SEPA to another department to instead say that the council can request another department assume lead agency status.
Lish, is there anything to add?
No.
No?
Any questions?
No?
Is there a second?
I'll second it.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
All those opposed?
Seeing none, motion passes.
With all those amendments behind us, and I know where Council Member Herbold and I will both be working separately on, or collectively on our own amendments, we'd like to move forward on the amended bill.
Are there any other amendments or questions at this time?
Seeing none, I move to adopt Council Bill 119600 as amended.
I'll second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstain?
This motion passes.
Thank you so much, Lish, for your help with this legislation, Council Member O'Brien for your co-sponsorship with me, and to Council Member Herbal for your helpful amendments.
I wanna thank the environmental groups and housing advocates who have asked us to lead on this issue.
This legislation has to take a slight delay to meeting notice requirements, but we'll be back before the full council on October 7th for a final vote.
Next item of business is a final discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 119597, which amends our open space incentives.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda item two, Council Bill 119597, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending sections of the Seattle Municipal Code to revise existing regulatory incentives to preserve open space and to allow departures from tower separation requirements when a project includes a landmark that is subject to landmark controls and incentives adopted by the City Council.
Will folks at the table introduce themselves?
Ali Panucci, Council Central staff.
Jim Holmes, Office of Planning and Community Development.
So we were briefed on this last week.
Would you mind just giving us another quick overview before today?
Happy to.
Council Bill 119597 would update and expand an existing incentive in the South Lake Union Urban Center to preserve privately held open space.
As the chair just noted, the committee held a public hearing and received a briefing on this proposal at the meeting on September 4th.
The proposal would provide additional height and floor area to a development and amend some associated development standards in exchange for preserving a qualifying open space.
Specifically, this will provide an incentive to a proposed development on the north side of John Street between Bourne Avenue North and Fairview Avenue North in exchange for preserving and maintaining the Seattle Times Park.
located at the intersection of John Street and Fairview and that would have to be maintained as publicly accessible open space.
The owners of the development will be required to record a covenant prohibiting future development of the open space and must maintain it for public access in perpetuity.
The proposed development is also subject to the mandatory housing affordability program and must complete the review and approval process through the Landmarks Preservation Board and the Design Review Board.
So some of the development standards that are adjusted or the departure is made available to this project, they still have to go through the approval process.
Staff did not identify any issues for the council's, excuse me, for the committee's consideration or any amendments proposed.
So we're happy to answer questions, but I don't have anything more to add.
I know that this is something that the community has been working on for a long time.
It's been a high priority.
I really appreciate the work that Councilmember Bagshaw has done in bringing this forward.
I know I'd made some commitments to try to work on this and haven't been able to follow through, so I'm glad that your District Councilmember did so.
And thank you for the community outreach.
I know that at the last PLEZ meeting, we had members from the South Lake Union Community Council speak in support.
So with that said, I move to adopt Council Bill 119597. Second.
Those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
This will be before the full Council on Monday, September 16th.
Thank you.
Our one final item of business is a resolution updating the city's position on the construction of a second bascule bridge across the Montlake Cut.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda item three, resolution 31904, a resolution relating to State Route 520, Interstate 5 to Medina Bridge replacement and high occupancy vehicle project, superseding resolutions and making recommendations for the future configuration of a second Montlake bascule bridge.
Thank you, Calvin Chow from Central Staff for joining us.
Can you please walk us through the resolution and the background that got us here?
Sure, I'm happy to.
The proposed legislation before you would support the development of the Washington State Department of Transportation's Second Basco Bridge Project, and this would be a change in city policy, and the proposed resolution would supersede Resolution 31411 and portions of Resolution 31611. The Second Basco Bridge is part of WSDOT's reconstruction of State Route 520 across Lake Washington.
and the second basketball bridge would actually be a second drawbridge adjacent to the existing Washdot bridge at the Montlake Cut.
The SR 520 project has been in development since at least 1997, when early planning began on the Translake Washington study.
In 2011 and 2012, Washdot undertook the Seattle community design process to refine design concepts on contentious elements of the project, and following this process, the city expressed its position on the second basketball bridge in a couple of resolutions.
In 2012, Council and the Mayor established city policy through Resolution 31411, which recommended that WSDOT not construct a second bicycle bridge within the foreseeable future.
The resolution evaluated the cost and impacts of the new bridge against the possibility of providing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements by other means.
The resolution noted that changed conditions, including the development of light rail in the SR520 corridor, could warrant reconsideration of the issue in the future.
In 2015, Council and the Mayor made further recommendations through Resolution 31611 that WSDOT funding for the Second Basco Bridge be used for pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements that were listed in the resolution.
In 2015, the Washington State Legislature approved funding for the SR 520 project and included funding for the 2nd Basco Bridge.
The 2nd Basco Bridge is part of WSDOT's scope for SR 520, but WSDOT has not announced any timetable for its construction.
WSDOT has consistently stated its intention to conduct additional coordination outreach with community stakeholders and city officials regarding the scope of the 2nd Basco Bridge project.
The proposed resolution for you notes several changes since the city took a position on the Second Basco Bridge.
In particular, the resolution notes the opening of the University of Washington Link Light Rail Station in March 2016, which averages over 10,000 weekday boardings.
and now serves as a transit hub for several Metro and Sound Transit bus routes.
The resolution also notes the opening of the SR 520 bicycle trail in December 2017, which connects the University of Washington to the regional bicycle network.
With these changed conditions, the proposed resolution replaces the City's previous policy recommendation against WSDOT building the second bicycle bridge with a position supporting development of the second bicycle bridge to increase capacity for transit and high-efficiency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
The new policy recommends maintaining the existing number of general-purpose traffic lanes across the Montlake Cut.
The resolution further requests that WSDOT establish opportunities for community stakeholder input in the project and explore ways to advance construction to coincide with other elements of the SR 520 project to reduce the overall disruption in the Montlake Corridor.
Thank you, Calvin.
So I in my time that I've been on the council I know that there have been many conversations before I got here many conversations that will continue after and it has been my My desire to both be responsive to the district, but also hear community concerns about what we can do to improve accessibility to the light rail station and I do have a letter from the Laurelhurst Community Council that was emailed to members of this committee to ask us to do what we can to support the second Bascule Bridge.
So I'm in alignment and trying to be as responsive as I can to my district.
We know as well that the region is growing with, we anticipate by 2050, 1.8 million new residents, 1.2 million new jobs.
And so to be proactive, accommodating that growth, I think it's important for us to expand our transportation infrastructure.
As you know, The Washington State Legislature included funding for a second draw bridge over the Montlake Cut as part of the SR 520 Rest of the West in 2015's Connecting Washington Package.
This bridge, the second bascule bridge, would be built alongside the existing Montlake Bridge.
The last time the City Council established a position on the second bascule bridge was in 2015 before the opening of the UW light rail station.
The presence of the station has increased the demand for people walking and biking in the Montlake Corridor.
In addition, the King County Metro and Sound Transit now are planning to route more buses across the Montlake Cut to connect riders to the ULink station at the Husky Stadium.
The Montlake Bridge is one of the most used bridges in the city by pedestrians and cyclists.
WSDOT has announced that they are updating traffic forecasts and bicycles and pedestrian volumes in preparation for a stakeholder engagement process in 2020. This process will review the new conditions of the U-Link station in place and the current transportation needs and potential options.
As those discussions begin, This resolution updates the council's position to make it clear that reliable transit and safe walking and biking are the city's priorities.
The proposed resolution would further request that WSDOT establish opportunities for community and stakeholder outreach input and explore opportunities to advance the project schedule such that it coincides with other SR520 construction phases and reduces the overall disruption in the corridor.
I think as someone who doesn't own a car thinks about all the different mobility options across our city.
This has been both a personal and district priority.
And so I'm hopeful that I can find the support in this committee to provide a new update to the city's position.
A couple questions?
Sure.
Thank you.
So in 2012 and 2015, when the city took the position that this was not a priority, was it because of opposition or was it because folks just thought that the funds could be spent in a better way, namely for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements?
At the time, the city had undertaken a report to look at triggers, if you will, for what might warrant a second bicycle bridge and determined at the time that a second bicycle bridge would not necessarily improve transit operations because it still is a drawbridge that would be susceptible to openings at the same time, and noted some of the further congestion along Montlake further up from the cut as being a constraint in that corridor.
So the position at the time was to look for other ways to try to improve those connections, those improvements without the full cost of the Second Basco Bridge.
This was at a time when the project wasn't funded, so there were still some conversations about where to spend the money as well.
This predated the Washington State Legislature funding the project.
And I appreciate having the letter from Laurel Hurst.
Have the other adjacent communities, Wade and Montlake, U District and Portage Bay?
My office continues to do the outreach.
We've just had the town hall as well, where we did hear from residents in the district in support.
And again, it's something that we know as the dynamics of the U-Lake station has changed, as well as we have more buses to accommodate or improve the transit access to the light rail station.
I can only say that the dynamics have changed from the city's position back in 2015. And so we will continue to have engagement with different communities, but it's my hope that we can have the initial discussion today and follow-up questions that I can be tasked with so that I can bring this back before the next PLEZ meeting on September 24th.
My only question is just the other adjacent communities.
That's it.
Thanks.
All right.
Well, thank you, Calvin.
This concludes the September 11th meeting of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.
One last reminder, our next committee meeting is on Tuesday, September 24th, 2019, starting at noon here in Council Chambers.
The September 18th meeting has been canceled.
Thank you all for attending.
We are adjourned.
you