Good morning.
The September 4th, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee meeting will come to order.
It is 9.34 a.m.
I am Abel Pacheco, chair of the committee.
I am gonna get us started for the morning.
We have three items on the agenda today.
A briefing discussion and public hearing on Council Bill 119597, which revises our incentives to preserve open space.
A briefing discussion and possible vote on Clerk File 314359, a contract rezone application for 4726 15th Avenue Northeast.
And a second briefing and discussion on Council Bill 119600, which updates our city SEPA policies.
The next PLEZ meeting will be on Monday, September 9th at 5.30pm here in Council Chambers for a public hearing on Council Bill 119600. There will also be a PLEZ meeting on Wednesday, September 11th at noon here in Council Chambers.
If there is no objection today, today's agenda will be adopted.
Hearing none, today's agenda is adopted.
At this time, we will take public comment.
on items that appear on today's agenda.
We have 10 minutes today for public comment.
Speakers are reminded that we have two minutes per speaker, and if you are here for the contract rezone, due to the council's quasi-judicial rules, this means that the council's consideration must be limited to a public record compiled by the hearing examiner and that members of the public are not allowed to comment on agenda item two today.
So, first on our list is Tierney and Martin.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
I'm Tierney Martin with FutureWise.
Today, you'll consider Council Bill 116900, a proposal to adapt the city's land use code in order to take advantage of the opportunities offered by Washington State Bill 1923. FutureWise, along with our partners, Transportation Choices Coalition, Climate Solutions, Sightline Institute, and others, support these changes and encourage you to vote the bill out of committee and onto the full Council at upcoming meetings.
During the 2019 legislative session, FutureWise and our partner organizations worked hard to pass HB 1923, and more specifically, to encourage the SEPA regulations that would help achieve the necessary outcome of building more homes without causing environmental harm.
We're confident that adopting the exemptions outlined in the bill before you will lead to greater housing diversity, more homes being built near high capacity transit, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts caused by our auto-centric land use patterns.
As you know, adopting the SEPA exemptions is the first step in the process.
When the time comes to decide which allowances are best suited to the city's needs, there will be more opportunities to engage the public and make adjustments to the specific land use policies in question.
We request that the council keep the city's history in mind, specifically the pattern of excluding poor and working class households from high opportunity neighborhoods through the adoption of zoning codes that forbid multifamily housing.
The city's Office of Planning and Community Development's Housing Choices Background Report is a really good resource for this history and its impact.
If we are serious about transforming the city into a place where one's race does not predict their well-being and where the costs of responding to the growing climate crisis are borne equitably across the neighborhoods, then we can no longer afford to participate in a process that, unfortunately, is being undermined by the tactic of procedural delay.
Future Wise and our partners support the SEPA exemption bill before you, and thank you for your leadership on the issue.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Brittany Bley, and she will be followed by Raya Paul.
Good morning.
I'm Brittany Bush-Bollet.
I'm the chair of the Sierra Club Seattle Group, and I am here to express our support for changes to SEPA implementation at the city level to fix it, to bring it back in line with its original intent of protecting the environment.
Unfortunately, SEPA has too often been weaponized to delay and prevent projects that actually have strong pro-environmental impacts.
and instead is used to increase sprawl and to proliferate card dependency.
So we support the council's efforts to fix EPA and we're on your side.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Ryan Paul, followed by Dylan Glosseski.
Hi, I'm just a Westlake resident, and I just wanted to voice my support for the SEPA reforms proposed by you and Councilman O'Brien.
And I just want to thank you guys for pushing that forward, and hope you guys vote it through to the Council and vote next week.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Dylan Glosowski.
Followed by Elise Lockhart.
Hi, yeah, so I'm Dylan Glusecki.
I'm an architect with Viya Architecture.
Also here, I'm a co-chair of the Urban Design Forum, which is part of the American Institute of Architects.
So I'm here representing the American Institute of Architects, Seattle chapter, in support of the CEPA reforms.
As several folks have already noted, which I am in complete agreement with, the SEPA law initially was intended to do some wonderful things for the environment and still does, but many of the regulations and the requirements of SEPA have since been incorporated into our basic codes.
It's often, as a previous speaker said, been used to delay construction projects currently and in some cases is doing more harm than good in its current state.
So we fully endorse the reform and just want to encourage you guys to pass this and move forward with this so that we're not seeing SEPA used as a weapon to prevent construction projects, including much-needed housing projects.
And particularly wanted to point out there's a list of particular items that you guys want to create exemptions for.
And our four top ones that I'll list here are the upzoning of 250-plus acres with frequent transit, allowing duplexes and triplexes in apartments and single-family zones, increasing exemptions that encourage urban infill development and allowing for subdivision of lots into smaller partials.
And just a plug at the end that this is part of a strategy of basically to allow make it easier in Seattle to build housing, which we desperately need.
And I would continue to ask you guys to have the conversation about considering our single-family zoning and continue to take a look at that as well, beyond the CPER forms.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Elise Lockhart.
Good morning.
I'm Alice Lockhart with 350 Seattle.
And I should be wearing my Green New Deal t-shirt here to speak before council, because SEPA reform really is needed to support the Green New Deal for Seattle.
We all know the Green New Deal will require us to build lots of affordable housing near transit in order to allow working people to live low-carbon lives near transit and prevent carbon-destroying urban sprawl.
Unfortunately, time and again in Seattle, SEPA appeal has been used to delay efforts to build or to allow more affordable housing, from backyard cottages to Fort Lawton, and most recently and egregiously to delay allowing more tiny home villages in our neighborhoods.
This last one isn't just about affordability, but also life and death as more people will continue to die in the street while the appeal delays desperately needed housing.
The actions being considered today to streamline Seattle's SEPA process in harmony with state law will save taxpayers the cost of lengthy appeals, help prevent further abuse of SEPA to block affordable housing, and in so doing, it will help speed development of climate-friendly and desperately needed affordable housing in the Green New Deal.
Thanks for your work on this.
Thank you.
Next is Megan Cruz, followed by Steve Rustello.
I'd also like to speak about the SEPA bill.
Seattle considers itself a very progressive city.
It wants a Green New Deal.
It's for human rights and public expression.
But this bill crushes all of that.
The reason affordable housing isn't being built is because of a thing called the grand bargain.
That gave developers the opportunity to buy out of building affordable housing all over the city, wherever they put in a building.
Instead, they can pay their way out.
And in order to get the building built, the city has to approve whatever design they produce.
And consistently, it's getting worse and worse.
Unsustainable designs, inequitable to existing stakeholders.
The reason people are challenging this is because they don't meet environmental standards.
For example, downtown, there are no affordable housing going in.
It's towers 40 to 50 stories tall.
Each of them includes parking for 50 to 80% of the residents.
An average tower of this size generates 1,000 car trips a day, even though these towers are surrounded by multi-modal options.
Don't be fooled.
This is not something that's going to stop affordable housing from being built.
We want sustainable housing as well as affordable housing and we have to have rules like SEPA that give people the ability to challenge and get the best designs.
Please don't pass this bill.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Russello.
The city is never really like SEPA.
Because that means there's another layer of people taking a look at what's going on.
And I'd really like to thank all the committee members who are here, because I think this is a reflection of what you think of public opinion.
And I'm glad the chairman was here.
But I'd like to get more into SEPA.
Let's take a look at trees.
Remember trees?
These environmentalists, or so-called environmentalists, don't care about the heritage large trees that are very good at taking care of carbon.
You don't care at all about those, and yet they call themselves environmentalists.
I did not hear these great environmentalists when we were talking about an MHA one for one replacement of housing under market in neighborhoods.
They were not there because that's a developer cost.
In other words, if you go from, say, 12 apartments that are under market because it's an older building and the owner is reasonable to, say, 100, you could have less under market housing come out of it, and you will.
And they will pay off a minor fee.
And the housing will probably not be in that neighborhood.
So all of these NIMBYs that you talk about, which have been for having housing around the city for people that is affordable, this will go against.
Because as you weaken SEPA, we find building that's done to development standards just to make money.
And I think Seattle is already over zoned.
Let's take a look.
How many times the population of Seattle could you put in without changing the zoning?
No, we're only making it more profitable.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Leslie Booker.
Good morning.
I'm coming to you as a concerned citizen in downtown Seattle in response to CB 119600. As it stands, the city council bill will negatively impact the public's ability to challenge inequitable decisions by the SDCI and favor development projects that put profit before the future of our beautiful city.
I have three specific concerns I urge you to consider.
First is the claim that improvements to the city code make SEPA review less needed.
This is not supported.
Firstly, the code cannot anticipate every eventuality.
That's why we need SEPA review.
Secondly, developments are becoming much greater and complex than ever envisioned in our code.
Where in the code has the city planned for 40 to 50 story towers with more than 2,000 people in them?
Such developments are equivalent to villages, but without any of the infrastructure that is expected to support them.
Where in the code has the city anticipated that alleys are now being turned into de facto thoroughfares or private driveways for such mega structures?
And where in the code has the city anticipated loss of daylight and impositions of shade and existing buildings?
These are just a few of the reasons why we need SEPA reviews.
Additionally, the proposal to hire hearing examiners pro tempore is not justified.
Outsourcing judiciary is never a good idea.
Finally, the proposal to limit the time a hearing examiner's appeal can take will whittle away citizens' rights to due process.
This isn't going to help us have more affordable housing.
It's only going to help us not have what we need, which is more oversight and steeper reviews.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I've been joined by Council Members Herbold and Council Member O'Brien.
Is there anyone who did not have a chance to speak that would like to speak?
Seeing none, we will now close public comment.
Our first item of business today is a briefing discussion and public hearing on Council Bill 119597, which amends our open space incentives.
Alyssa, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Council Bill 119597 is 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 allow departures from tower separation requirements when the project includes a landmark that is subject to landmark controls and incentives adopted by the City Council.
Would the folks at the table please introduce themselves and then tell us more about this item.
Ali Panucci, Council Central Staff.
Jim Holmes, OPCD.
Good morning, Council Members.
Council Bill 119597 is a proposal to modify the land use code incentive, excuse me, a land use code incentive to preserve existing privately held open space in the South Lake Union Urban Center.
In 2013, the City Council approved a rezone of this area that included a variety of incentives to allow increases in height and floor area in exchange for certain public benefits.
One of the options a developer could choose is preservation of existing open space.
Following implementation of the mandatory housing affordability program, the value of this incentive was reduced.
So this legislation provides an update to the incentive that restores its value to preserve existing open space and will ensure that the area known as the Seattle Times Park will be preserved and available to the public.
I will now turn it over to OPCD to go over the proposal in more detail.
Great, thanks.
Second here.
Next slide, yeah.
Yeah.
Yes, so in the 2013 rezone included a number of incentives and development standards intended to achieve the community's vision that was set out in the urban design framework.
One of the main ideas from that was that there'd be a network of open space through the neighborhood.
So there's development standards that require different amounts of ground level open space, mid-block connections, et cetera.
This legislation, as Ali said, strengthens the existing incentive to preserve the Seattle Times Park, which was reduced in value when MHA was applied to the neighborhood, and will preserve the Seattle Times Park in perpetuity as long as the project exists as public open space, but maintained privately by the developer of the site.
If you look on this map here, you see the area in blue, which is called the Fairview And we're talking about the five blocks right there on the west side of Fairview.
These blocks are substantially larger than the average block in South Lake Union.
The average block is about 80,000 square feet bisected by an alley, so 40,000 on each side of the alley.
These blocks are almost 110,000 square feet, three of which do not have alleys bisecting them.
So when we developed the original rezone proposal, we understood that they could accommodate more development potential than the smaller blocks.
So some of the development standards are unique to these blocks.
Larger floor plates, a little more FAR, tower spacing requirements that are different than other blocks.
And one of the things about three of these blocks is that they had landmarks for the Seattle Times Park.
So we really want to ensure whatever happened in exchange for this increased development potential, that these assets were preserved for the neighborhood.
So I've talked about how MHA reduced the value of the incentive we had provided.
This is what was adopted in 2013. So if you look at, you see those two towers and you see three planes, one at the bottom, one in the middle, one at the top.
That first increment was what you could develop by right without any public benefits being provided.
And that was equivalent to what the existing zoning allowed at the time.
All of the floor area above that middle plane had to be achieved through a combination of providing affordable housing and transfer of development rights from rural forests and farmland.
Application of MHA changed this structure and applied the affordable housing requirement to the entire building, leaving only this portion of the floor area above that middle plane that was devoted to TDR as the incentive.
the non-MHA related incentive, the original incentive to preserve the park would have raised that middle plane higher so less floor area was subject to providing public benefits.
The benefit to the developer of preserving the park was dramatically reduced with this change.
So what this ordinance does is resource on that benefit.
The key thing it does is allows transfer of floor area that could be developed on the park to the adjacent block.
And you see right there what has been proposed.
three floors on one tower on the west side of the block, one floor on the tower on the east side of the block.
That represents a little less than half of the floor area that could be developed on the park, which they could develop should they choose to without agreeing to the use of this incentive.
The other thing this legislation does is it has a number of modifications to development standards to allow this project to reach its full development potential.
I talked about setbacks.
On Thomas Street, which is at the north end of this block, there is an upper level setback required running from Fairview to Aurora, and that's progressive.
The setback gets greater, and the intent there is to provide a continuous view of the Space Needle as you drive down Thomas Street.
We also, based on guidance from the Landmarks Commission and in the updated urban design guidelines, they're setting back this tower from the facade of the Seattle Times building, which kind of brings it to the forefront of the project and really improves the design of the project.
The only way for them to reach the full development potential, the floor plate size, is then to encroach on this tower spacing requirement.
So after talking with the community about were there any of these standards ones that they felt they could compromise on, it was agreed that we would recommend making the tower spacing requirement a departable standard only to the extent necessary to achieve the maximum floor plate size.
So that is also in this proposal.
And finally, there is a provision that allows for sky bridges connecting these two towers, provided the sky bridges are internal to the project.
That's it.
I think a couple of things worth noting is in the, in terms of the departable standard that is subject to the design review process.
Correct.
And so it will be subject to that public process and comment and needs to be, you know, result in a better overall design for the project.
And then the other thing to know is that while this better, it provides more value for the incentive to provide the public open space.
It does not diminish the required MHA requirement, so with the additional floor area they still have to contribute to the MHA program in the same amount they would if they were not taking advantage of this incentive.
Council Member Hurdle?
Can you tell me, I'm guessing that the reference in the title to specific sections, I haven't read the text of the bill yet, that the reference to the SMC sections centers this proposal in a geographic area, so this isn't citywide, this is focused on this particular project.
Correct, there's very specific criteria.
It has to be a block of a certain size.
Open space had to be in existence as of 2015. So it's subject to criteria, not a geographic location?
Correct.
Okay, so I would like to know what other potential impacts this bill might have on other landmarks or Yeah, on other landmarks that have development potential.
As far as we know, there's no other site.
I mean, we've looked through the whole neighborhood that could satisfy that criteria.
There is one existing.
Site of open space.
It was in existence at that time.
That's the site of the Discovery Center But the block isn't large enough to meet that criteria.
So it is specific to South Lake Union.
It sounds like you're saying.
Oh, correct It is the zone SM and SLU is specific to the South Lake Union Urban Center.
So, thank you Councilmember O'Brien I'm I don't have my head totally around this.
So sure.
Can I ask you to just walk through?
I understand how it used to work pre-MHA.
I guess my first question is, is the project where they're preserving the facade of the old Seattle Times building the same project that's going on adjacent to the park?
Correct, yes.
So that's all.
That all had a MUP before MHA, didn't it?
No, the site that has the Sailor Times facade on does not have a MUP yet.
Oh, so they're just doing the demo work, but without a MUP?
Yeah, they've got applications in, and they've been going through the design review process.
They had previously considered a residential project on that site, and that might be something you're remembering as well, because they did apply for that, but then they decided to change to a commercial project.
So are they vesting to pre-MHA or post, or do they have the flexibility to do either?
No, they are limited.
They have to do MHA.
Okay.
And that's the whole site, not just where the...
Correct.
Okay.
All right.
So even though I see construction there, my assumption had been that it came in before.
So the block that the park is located on is well under construction, and you can go by and see the towers there.
Yeah.
And that was subject to MHA too.
That is because they opted in, I assume.
No, they actually got them up after MHA became effective.
Yeah, OK.
OK, so that's helpful.
I understand how the mix of incentives worked.
And if I understand correctly, because there's no longer a bonus to be achieved through the incentive zoning, because we're going to charge you for whatever you build anyways, is that the piece where now the incremental cost of paying for the open space doesn't give them the return on their investment?
That's correct.
And so what's the, I'm a little confused here about then, what's the shift here?
What are they getting now?
They are getting more floor area.
They are transferring floor area off the side of the park onto the adjacent block.
So if you look at the image that's on the screen now, the floors that are above the dotted blue line, so three floors on the west portion of the site and then one floor on the east portion of the site, but for this legislation would not be.
permitted.
That is the height limit.
From the park side.
From the park and then the public benefit is that the park is maintained and is opened and is very clearly a public park open with all the, you know, you can't remove people unless they're being, you know, disruptive to others.
You know, the basic, the same rules that we apply to other private.
Correct, yeah.
What's that sloped line that intersects the building?
Yeah, that's actually a feature of the design of the building.
The sides of the building kind of, it doesn't read very well in this drawing.
God, I thought that was some of the plane about where the Space Needle View blockage was.
Okay, so don't worry about that, that's a design element.
Yeah, that's design.
Got it.
So we're just talking about, essentially it's like, it's almost like a combined lot development transfer that other folks are done.
I mean, it's that kind of concept.
But it's separated by, okay.
All right.
Okay.
Well, seeing that there's no more discussion, I will now open the public hearing on Council Bill 119597. Speakers limited to two minutes of public comment.
If the speaker's comments exceed the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.
First on our list is John Pearson.
Thank you, Council Members.
My name is John Pearson.
I'm a board member of the South Lake Union Community Council and a resident of Marabella, literally across the street from the Seattle Times Park.
At Marabella, I lead the Marabella Development Task Force that monitors developments and tries to impact the quality of development in our area.
We started working on saving the Seattle Times Park before 2013, over six years ago.
We have contacted all the city council members, former mayor staff and members of DCI and OPCD before their name changes.
Compared to the original plan.
which was to destroy this small urban park, chainsaw down five exceptional trees.
This current plan is great.
It represents a compromise on both sides, saving the park for the life of the buildings, and keeping the park open to the public, and at the same time, but allowing some additional height for office development on an adjacent lot.
This solution has the support of the South Lake Union Community Council and the Marabella Development Task Force.
I would be remiss if I didn't say that this solution would not have happened except for Council Member Sally Bagshaw.
She and her office worked tirelessly to develop this compromise, obtain an agreement in a written MOA, and follow it up by trying to accelerate this tax amendment to the Council for over a period of six years.
The essence of this agreement will have some life by an attachment to the deed to protect our neighbourhood in the future.
I can speak for the Southlake Union Community Council Board and the Maribel Immunity.
We will miss Sally Bagshaw when she's back at Harvard instead of saving the city or at least council district seven.
So thank you for her for all she's done and we appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll be sure to forward the message.
Next on our list is Megan Cruz followed by Steve Rustella.
Thanks.
This is a very interesting proposal, and it seems to work out well for the neighborhood in this case, but I would echo Councilmember Herbold's concerns about setting precedence for other landmarks in other neighborhoods.
Right now, landmarks and daylight skylight is at a premium in Seattle, and when we start making deals to be able to add a little bit more here and there.
We're cutting out views and light that everybody enjoys.
So just, I would say, let's keep this to a minimum.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Russello.
I wish I had more faith in the administration of land use.
When you tell me that it's for one place, I really hope you're right because we have done a lot of interesting things with land use in this city, things that were not precedents turned into precedents and actually ground floors, not ceilings.
So my concern is What will be the cost to the developer if this park is no longer a park?
Is there going to be some penalty that would be so bad that we would accept the penalty and the loss of the park?
That probably is not in there, but I would hope it would be.
I hear a lot from the development community about takings.
But they have received a lot of givings, and I don't see the same sort of desire to compensate the city and the taxpayers for the things that they are achieving and getting.
So I would say that When we have our hearings and when we delete SIPA, which is what you're trying to do and doing a fair job of weakening it, it's not totally dead yet.
And you have already taken design review down to almost nothing.
It used to be wide open to look at the project and to make it fit, and you don't really think that's important anymore.
And the fact that many of you well, don't show up for the public hearing part of this meeting, that it shows what people on the council think of the public.
And the public is a little concerned about your stewardship.
Thanks, Steve.
Next is Leslie Booker.
Good morning, my name is Leslie Bucher, and I'm a resident of the Fisher Studio building, a historic landmark downtown.
And I'd like to say that this proposal works well because it preserves green space.
However, we have setbacks in regards to landmarks for a reason, preservation.
Changing these setbacks requirements in regards to landmarks sets a dangerous precedent.
Please think long and hard about this decision and what it will mean for decisions months and years from now.
Please think about what it says about preservation in Seattle.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak and did not sign up to speak?
I just ask that you please sign.
I will sign in.
Thank you.
Sorry, this is Jessie Clawson with McCullough Hill Leary, 701 5th Avenue, suite 6600. We represent ANI, the proponent of this code amendment, and I'm sorry for not signing in earlier.
I just wanted to clarify a couple of things that I heard.
I heard a couple of questions about MHA and incentive zoning payments, and I wanted to be I actually texted the client, thank you technology, to make sure I got the numbers correct.
So for 1120 Denny, which is the project just adjacent to the park on the south side of John Street, the affordable housing payment for that project is $8 million.
For 1120 John, which is the project on the north side of John that is receiving the density, the affordable housing payment is $11 million.
So those are the numbers that we're dealing with in terms of affordable housing payments.
I also wanted to clarify, I heard a comment earlier related to setbacks and landmark structures.
This actually doesn't change anything that we're doing with the Landmarks Preservation Board.
What it does is it allows for departures in terms of tower spacing and tower separation.
It doesn't change the process that we are continuing to go through with the Landmarks Preservation Board.
So that process will continue.
We'll have to obtain a certificate of approval from the Landmarks Board for what we're trying to build.
So if you do have any questions, we're more than happy.
We did the rounds earlier, but if you guys have any more specific questions, we're more than happy to answer them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any other final speakers who did not have a chance to sign up that would like to speak?
Seeing none, I will now close public hearing on Council Bill 119597. And colleagues, just for additional context, last year our collection of MHA payments was about $13.6 million.
So thank you both for briefing us today.
This legislation will be back before the committee for a possible vote next week on Wednesday, September 11th at noon.
Our next item is a briefing discussion and possible vote on Clerk File 314359, a contract rezone application for 4726 15th Avenue Northeast.
Alyssa, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Yes, clerk file 314359 is an application of Yuan's H&H property LLC to rezone in approximately 4,320 square foot site located at 4726 15th Avenue Northeast from low-rise 3 multifamily residential to neighborhood commercial 2 with a 65 foot height limit.
We are joined at the table by Lish Whitson of Council of Central Staff.
Since this is my first quasi-judicial item as plus chair, Lish, will you refresh us on the quasi-judicial rules and jump into your briefing?
Sure.
This is a petition for a site-specific rezone, which means that council reviews the proposal based on criteria in the land use code.
It has received a recommendation for approval with conditions from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.
There was a open record hearing held at the hearing examiner.
The hearing examiner also recommended approval with conditions.
And that record is contained in this folder and is available to all of you to review.
And I'll be showing you some excerpts from hearing examiner's record.
Council may not receive any public comments at this stage and there were no appeals to the hearing examiner's recommendation.
So the clerk file for the approval comes in at the very beginning of the stage.
And often as the project gets better defined, we have changes to the proposal.
At the end of the presentation, I'll talk about the changes to the title of the clerk file.
that you should consider.
But basically this is the rezone of one lot from low rise three with a mandatory housing affordability suffix to neighborhood commercial 265 with a mandatory affordable housing suffix one.
And The site is located on the east side of 15th Avenue Northeast, south of Northeast 50th Street and north of Northeast 47th Street in the University Urban Center.
The lot to be rezoned is currently zoned Low Rise 3 with an M designation.
As you can see, it's sort of a tooth that was left out of a rezoning along the rest of the block face.
The previous property owner decided not to sign a property use and development agreement that its neighbors agreed to sign when the rest of the block was rezoned, so it left this one parcel.
out of that rezone, new property owners have come forward requesting a rezone that's consistent with what their neighbors were rezoned to.
Council Member O'Brien.
On that map, the blue dot is inside the Is that just the blue dots a little bit off, or is the project span both zones?
So the project spans three parcels, and the blue dot is at 4726 15th Northeast, which was the address for the land use permit.
Development will occur on all three parcels, and the blue dot represents the middle of the three parcels.
Two of the parcels are currently zoned NC275 and one is LR3.
And all of these parcels were rezoned in April under the citywide MHA legislation.
The rezone would facilitate the development of a seven-story, 127-unit building with ground floor retail and underground parking.
This is a more detailed image of the facade.
The building to the north has been built.
And this is the ground floor with some commercial space, residential lobby, parking access.
There's about 40 parking spaces proposed in the project.
So the Department of Construction Inspections recommended conditional approval with two conditions.
Development be in substantial conformance with approved plans and the project be subject to the mandatory housing affordability requirements.
If the committee supports the recommendation of the hearing examiner and the department, There are a few steps that should be taken.
The first is to amend the title to reflect current conditions, including the current application MHA under the rezone that was passed earlier this year.
Reflecting the current applicant for the proposal and reflecting that the parcel at 4730 15th Northeast is being rezoned, not the one to the south.
Given that we hear so much about MHA payments, do you have an estimated amount on what the MHA payment would be for this parcel?
No.
It is a 20, so the M1 designation on the site in this location would be $20 a square foot or 9% of the residential units.
The other two parcels which will only have an M designation would have a 6% requirement and a $13 square foot requirement.
Council Member O'Brien.
So how, I hadn't really contemplated a split zone.
Do we average or do we literally look at the square footage that are on that parcel?
I think they will have to look at the square footage on each parcel.
I mean, the design looks like they're going to, it's not like they're going to step down when it goes to that, so.
Right, but that's intriguing.
Yeah, if the rezone isn't approved, then they would need to step down and they would need to eliminate the commercial space in the ground floor.
Any further questions?
Seeing none, thank you, Lish.
I support correcting the title to align with the updated MHA guidelines and to address the other errors that you explained.
If there is no more discussion, I would like to move to amend clerk file 314359 to replace the title as described in the central staff memo.
Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
Now that we have corrected the title, if there's no further discussion, I move to adopt the findings, conclusions, and decisions as shown in Attachment 2 of the Central Staff Memo.
Second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
Finally, I move that we recommend the application contained in Clerk File 314359 be granted as conditioned at the City Council meeting on September 23rd.
Those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
The motion passes.
Thank you.
As stated, this will be back before the council September 23rd in order to give central staff time to work on the property use and development agreement as well as introduce an ordinance.
Thank you for being here today, Lish.
Thank you.
Our final item of business today is a briefing and discussion on updates to our city SEPA policies.
Alyssa, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Yes, Council Bill 119600 is 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.
Lish, welcome back.
Thank you.
So today's discussion is a chance to follow up on any outstanding questions from our last meeting and give committee members another chance to ask other questions before a public hearing and vote next week.
So, Lish, if you can just give us a refresher and we can go from there.
So this legislation updates the city's regulations related to the State Environmental Policy Act, or SEPA.
It incorporates new provisions from Washington State law adopted this past spring and in 2012, and best practices from other jurisdictions.
In particular, it exempts certain non-project actions from SEPA appeal if acted on by April 1st, 2021. It provides a time limit on hearing examiner appeals.
States that non-project actions that would implement the comprehensive plan or shoreline management program would be categorically exempt from SEPA regulations.
And exempts projects in urban villages with up to 200 units from SEPA until the urban village has met its 20 year estimated growth under the comp plan.
Any development over the 20 year estimate is subject to environmental review.
And I should mention that this proposal does not change any exemptions for downtown Seattle.
the current exemptions that are in place would continue.
At the last committee meeting, council members asked how this compares to cities in other states and the brief answer that it doesn't really.
20 states have environmental regulations, most of them adopted in the late 60s and early 70s.
In response to and sort of mirroring the National Environmental Policy Act, But most of the state laws that require environmental review only apply to state agencies.
They don't apply to cities and counties.
Only five states have environmental review requirements that apply to cities.
Washington, New York, and California have the most complex regulations.
And Washington is the only state that provides for an appeal of an environmental determination before an action has been approved.
In other states, either there is no ability for someone to appeal a environmental designation or Appeals only happen to the courts after a decision has been reached.
So Washington State is the only state where hearing examiner appeals occur.
I looked at what other Washington State jurisdictions do, and the largest jurisdictions also have time limits on the hearing examiner appeal.
They're shorter than those proposed under this legislation.
But King and Pierce counties and Spokane and Tacoma all have time limits on the amount of time that the hearing examiner can take to review an appeal.
Snohomish, Spokane, and Clark counties in Vancouver and Bellevue don't have time limits on their SEPA appeals, which is consistent with Seattle's current practice.
Any questions?
Council Member Bryan.
So the proposed legislation would limit the appeal period to 120 days, 150 under certain kind of complex scenarios.
And the other large cities or large counties have a shorter timeline.
I'm curious, my understanding is we've arrived at the 120 day period as what we think is kind of feasible.
How do the jurisdictions, how successful are they in getting even shorter timelines?
So the one that I've reviewed in detail was King County, and their limit was actually put in place just a couple of years ago, so there's not a lot of examples, but they don't have the volume of hearing and appeals that Seattle does.
So how much of it is the backlog challenge, and that when someone appeals today, it's like, I guess the backlog nature of it, that there's just a bunch of things in the queue before you get to it, versus the complexity, and even if the slate were cleared and this was the only appeal, that it takes longer?
I think it's both.
It's both, okay.
And Seattle has had a number of fairly large, complex proposals that have gone through SEPA appeals recently.
And I know you know them, but the MHA legislation, Adu Dadu legislation, The Bird Club and the Trail were all large with multiple appellants, multiple attorneys.
The presence of an attorney in an appeal tends to lengthen the appeal out.
So all of those can contribute to the length of the appeals.
And people are really interested in what happens in Seattle.
So we get a lot of attention.
The component of the timeline that's driven by what I'll just call backlog can be addressed in part by more resources to the hearing examiner, whether it's internal staff or, you know, temp people that come in and do that, so that we can eliminate the backlog.
And then on the complexity, Are there things that the hearing examiner can do to kind of streamline the process on complex ones?
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not an expert on it, but it does feel like that there are legal maneuverings that people can do to ask for another 30 days, and another review, and another hearing, and those types of things.
And is that all somewhat discretionary within the hearing examiner to say, like, yes, we're going to stretch this out over six months, or no, you're going to have You know, you're going to have to do it all in these next couple months.
So the legislation has a 120-day limit.
It provides the, it allows the hearing examiner to extend that to 150 days.
It appears to be a fairly complex appeal, and one of the things that can take more time is discovery, so limiting discovery could shorten the amount of time generally.
SEPA appeals are based on a record that is the either EIS or the determination of non-significance and it's up to the hearing examiner how far beyond those documents discovery occurs.
So that's a discretionary decision that the hearing examiner can make in their purview?
Yeah.
And then the legislation allows the hearing examiner to extend beyond 150 days if all the parties agree.
So if everyone sees that there's a lot of work that will need to happen before the hearing occurs or that multiple hearing sessions might be needed, they can agree on a mutually agreeable timeline.
Mlish, you gather the data in terms of the hearing examiner and how long those appeals take.
And the average was approximately 120 days, correct?
Yeah, the median was 120 days, and it's been longer more recently.
But before 2015 or so, almost all appeals happened within 120 days.
Council Member Hubel?
Thanks.
I just want a little bit more of an understanding about items six and seven in your memo related to the environmental analysis of economic issues.
Item six says clarify that additional non-environmental analysis of economic issues when included in an environmental document is not subject to appeal.
So that item, independent of item seven, which is not about the appeal rights, it's about whether or not SEPA analysis is required.
Is that correct?
Six is about appeals, seven is about the analysis itself.
Right.
So under the state level SEPA regulations, there is a list of items that need to be analyzed under That does not include economic issues and state law is clear that economic issues are not part of SEPA.
Our regulations since the 1980s have required analysis of economic issues alongside SEPA regulations.
But it was never contemplated that that analysis would be subject to review or subject to appeal.
Recent cases, particularly the Burke-Gilman Trail, that's been muddied in the courts.
So this clarifies that economic analysis is not subject to appeal because it is not a component of the environment under the state level SEPA regulations.
And then the second also came up in the Burke-Gilman appeal.
State level SEPA is clear that individual economic circumstances of a particular business are not something that should be considered or disclosed in SEPA.
But in that case, the courts were starting to lead down that path in terms of how a particular bike trail will impact particular businesses along a particular route and how changes to the street right-of-way will potentially change the economic circumstances of an individual business.
And this clarifies that that's not what SEPA's for.
in Seattle, even though it's not legally required to do an economic analysis under SEPA, we will continue to do it, but not for individual businesses' impact.
Correct.
Perfect.
Thank you.
And Lish, under HB 19, sorry, 1923, this city has until when to update our thresholds?
April 1st, 2021.
Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
As it relates specifically to authorizing SDCI to promulgate rules for uniform standards, I understand that the authority lies with SDCI to promulgate the rules, but can we include some language around the obligation of SDCI to work with appropriate city departments in developing those rules?
I'm just thinking there are a number of departments with expertise in specific areas that this legislation touches.
It might be useful to give those departments a role in the development of the rules.
Yeah, and that is standard practice, and there are numerous joint rules, for example, between STCI and the Department of Transportation.
Also, as it relates to the pro tem examiners, are there ethics rules around the other business that those pro tem examiners might have with projects that could be impacted by their decision making.
Just wondering whether or not, if there aren't, whether or not we should consider that to try to make sure that we're Avoiding any conflict of interest in giving them that additional authority.
I Will look into that more I'm almost certain that any Contractors with the city have certain ethical ethics rules that they need to comply with but I'll make sure that you have that for your next meeting Appreciate you
checking into that and then the last thing I wanted to share just to key up for discussion next time is in response to a letter from climate solutions, futurized sightline, and transportation choices that we received as it relates to the SEPA legislation and areas within the city with high risk of displacement and low access to opportunity.
There's an amendment that I'd love to talk to you about between now and the next meeting.
that would clarify that the legislation as proposed would apply only to areas that are at low risk of displacement and have high access to opportunity.
Awkward silence.
I've just seen this, so I apologize.
Digesting landings.
It takes a while.
You can all talk.
As somebody who used to volunteer in radio many, many years ago, silence is very...
I feel like I need to fill it.
Would you like to speak a little further about your amendment?
I mean, I think it's really consistent with positions that I have worked to promote as a member of this committee for years as it relates to land use and development and how those policies impact areas that are at risk of displacement.
We have our displacement risk analysis that is part of our comprehensive plan.
It's where we have a commitment to using it and I think using it in this way to ensure that we, that this bill actually works towards promoting greater housing diversity is really important.
I'm willing to consider this and give us further consideration.
I just want to make sure that I can check in both with staff, central staff, my staff, as well as some stakeholders, and before I give further comment.
Council Member Bryan.
Like I said, just floating it.
Yep, to Molly.
I'm intrigued by it.
I don't know if it's still too early for me.
I can't get my head around it completely.
But with the public hearing next week, it'll be great to just hear comments on that.
So I appreciate Council Member Herbold having this out there.
So folks can comment on it.
Well, I know there are no further questions.
I want to thank folks in the audience, as well as Lish, for all your work, as well as all the individuals and organizations that spoke this morning.
We will have the public hearing, we will reconvene next Monday for the public hearing at 5.30 p.m.
on this.
Follow up for further consideration and a vote on Wednesday the 11th at noon.
This concludes now our September 4th, 2019 meeting of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.
Just one last reminder that, again, the public hearing for the SEPA reform ordinance will be on Monday, September 9th at 5.30 p.m.
here in Council Chambers, followed by the September 11th meeting Wednesday at noon.
Thank you all for attending.
We are adjourned.