Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee 8/7/19

Good morning.

The August 7th, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee will come to order.

It is 9.36 a.m.

I'm Abel Pacheco, chair of the committee.

I am joined by Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Mosqueda.

Okay, so we have three items on the agenda today.

A briefing, discussion, and possible vote on Resolution 31896, the annual comprehensive plan docket set resolution.

A briefing on Council Bill 119600, updating our CEPA policies, and a briefing from the Seattle Planning Commission on their Neighborhoods for All report.

The next regularly scheduled PLEZ meeting is on Wednesday, September 4th, starting at 9.30 a.m.

here in Council Chambers.

Before we begin, if there is no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing none, today's agenda is adopted.

At this time, we will be taking public comment on items that appear on today's agenda.

We have 10 minutes today for public comment.

Speakers are limited 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 that 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 Corey Crocker.

Good morning, council members.

So my name is Corey Crocker and I have a home, a small business and have lived in the district for the past 28 years.

And I was very concerned when I discovered the proposed amendments to our city's environmental review process in compliance with the state of Washington's SEPA regulations.

And my question is, how will the recommended changes impact our local community as we become a high rise urban center?

All of you have visited our district, but allow me to put our challenge into perspective.

The average height of development on the Ave is about one and a half stories.

The current zoning can go up to 65 feet.

What you're asking us to do is to take it from the floor to above my head, right behind the alley of the Ave, you can go up 320 feet.

That's an incredible amount of change in our small district in a very short time.

So we have welcomed more density with our 2017 up zone than any other urban center outside of contiguous downtown.

We're doing our fair share.

We want to make density work, but we are losing our small businesses.

Sixty-five percent of them are owned by women or people of color.

With the adoption of the up zone two and a half years ago, you, the council, promised our community seven companion resolutions to make it work.

One of them was a historic district on the Ave.

Another one was a legacy small business program.

So far, there has been very little progress on both of those, let alone the others.

Councilmember Pacheco, when you were After your appointment, you said that you would likely support upzoning the street known as the Ave, while seeking to alleviate concerns held by small business owners there.

So we're asking you, we're pleading you to please consider the impacts of these changes to our small business community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Rick McLaughlin.

When I heard the rumor that you guys were going to try to strip out some of the ordinances of SEPA, I thought it was a joke.

I laughed.

I was like, why would they ever try to pursue limiting the rights of residents and citizens of Seattle to be able to help guide how the city grows?

And the only answer to that is, essentially, they're trying to take the rights away.

And they're trying to make it so they can grow however they see fit without the consult of small businesses and residents.

So I hope that the rest of the council sees this as a joke, because I see it clearly as a joke.

I mean, why would you try to take away the right to an appeal and limit the ability of essentially development in the city.

At the end of the day, development's gonna happen and it's gonna continue to happen.

It makes no sense to try to take away the voice of the people.

And that's what you're trying to do today.

So, I urge you to pull this ordinance off, to remove the bill, and to actually assess where your heart lies.

And if it's with the voters and the residents and the citizens, or if it's just with development firms.

So, please take a good look in the mirror.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rick.

Also, this is a little side comment.

Rick owns Big Time Brewery.

It's a little early, but it's an award-winning brewery in District 4. Next on our list is Laura Lowe.

Good morning, everyone.

Happy day after the election.

So I came here today to talk about the abuses that I've seen with SEPA and also to say how wonderful the Neighborhoods for All plan is.

I know both of those are on the agenda.

So the SEPA abuse that I've seen over the last four years following land use closely as a volunteer housing advocate, endless delays using the State Environmental Protection Act on a local level to prevent affordable housing being built in Fort Lawton, preventing safe streets projects across the city, really common sense things that need to happen during a housing and a climate crisis, and how folks are able to use the way SEPA is right now.

We're not getting rid of SEPA, we're just making some little changes that will make it work the way it's supposed to work and not be able to be abused and co-opted for obstructionist purposes, especially during the urgency of climate and housing crisis.

We need to make sure that folks are acting in good faith, and the way we've seen SEPA used is never, almost never in good faith.

It's always being used to delay, delay, delay, and it's resulted in many dollars lost for affordable housing and people being injured because they didn't have the safe infrastructure that they needed across the city to get around safely.

So I'm really excited you're working on CEPA reform and I'm really excited to hear about the Neighborhoods for All updates and plan from the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Megan Cruz.

Good morning.

I'm here to talk about 119-600 and the dismantling of SEPA protections.

Yesterday, the Council held a rally about the Seattle Green New Deal.

They urged us to join a board and fight carbon emissions and climate change, which they see as the number one crisis.

In the very same session, the Council heard a report from SDOT that supported developers paying a one-time transportation impact fee as an alternative to performing SEPA mitigations, something that's meant to protect the public.

In today's ordinance, the Mayor and the Council say they believe SEPA review is largely unnecessary and can be supplanted by the City's Codes and Design Review Board.

Doesn't anybody see a disconnect here?

Over the last few years, design review has narrowed its scope.

Downtown, where I live, it's all about tower aesthetics and how it fits into the skyline.

When citizens talk, the neighbors talk about issues arising from the tower's transportation and waste design, its height, bulk, and scale impacts to smaller neighbors, the answer is always the same.

We are not experts in this area.

It will all be addressed at SEPA.

Yet this legislation seeks to shift technical parts of SEPA review to a design review board that doesn't want that and isn't qualified for it, admittedly.

SEPA is a uniform statewide standard for environmental review.

It's a backstop legislation to ensure environmental best practices and citizen participation.

Developers are calling for its dismantling because of their unsustainable designs.

If they're being challenged, instead of looking at the repeated nature of these challenges and fixing what's going wrong at Design Review and MUP, this bill just steamrolls over public protections.

Please go back to the drawing board with this ordinance.

Projects would not be challenged if they started with neighborhood input and sustainable design.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Charlie Royer.

Mayor, sorry.

Charlie.

Yeah, I'm not Charlene, remember that?

My name is Charlie Royer.

I'm co-chair of the joint PSA PFD committee which developed the stadium district plan and is now once again seeking inclusion in the comprehensive plan.

The resolution before you is almost word for word the same resolution.

The full council approved unanimously in 2016 and again in 2017. These resolutions requested the executive to evaluate the stadium district plan, make recommendations for potential amendments to the comp plan in 2018. Committees and the executive studied, recommendations were made, but no action was taken.

Our joint PFD PSA committee has met every criterion mandated by the executive and council.

we're docketing our proposal.

If moved forward again by the council, our proposal would change nothing in stadium district zoning until and after the mayor's industrial land use study and after the city's rigorous land use process on each new zoning request in the future.

We've heard some concerns about our proposal and we listened to them.

We're ready to address them, such as potential boundary changes, future uses in and adjacent to industrial and maritime lands.

The Mayor's study of those lands, if conducted in a more timely manner, could provide some needed clarity for moving forward in a landscape with intense private developer interest, especially in currently publicly owned land and in the Stadium District, where the zoning permits office development but not the mixed-use development.

and public use needed by Pioneer Square, the port's soon-to-be-named cruise ship terminal operator, and the publicly owned stadiums.

Please approve this resolution before you, which meets our needs for both schedule and plan review.

Work with us to address any concerns you have, and help us carry out our statutory responsibility to protect the investment in our stadiums while providing workforce housing, new compatible light industry, and training facilities for young people seeking good non-tech jobs making things, jobs which, unlike heavy industry, are well-suited for the healthy, safe, and vibrant mixed-use neighborhood we envision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Rohrer.

Next on our list is Eric Fitch, and Chad Su is following Eric.

Thank you, Chair Pacheco, Councilmembers Mosqueda and O'Brien.

I'm Eric Fitch here on behalf of the Port of Seattle and the Seaport Alliance.

We've spoken to you before about our support for the working waterfront, and I'm glad to work with each of you on those issues.

We have asked you not to dock at the proposed stadium district comp plan amendment that's before you today.

We know you'll be speaking more about that later.

In general, we're opposed to removing lands from either of the city's two manufacturing industrial centers without the benefit of a comprehensive, region-wide industrial land review.

The resolution before you today includes not just the Stadium District but other properties in both of the City's MICs.

And we have been given a firm commitment from the Mayor that she will be soon reconvening a region-wide review of industrial lands.

Just a word on the Manufacturing Industrial Centers, or MICs.

They are engines that power our regional economic growth and diversity.

The Ballard, North End, MIC, hosts more than 10,000 industrial jobs as of 2015, and as of 2017, your own study found that there were more than 35,000 jobs contained in the Duwamish MIC.

These are jobs in an array of industries available even to the city's residents who don't have a college degree.

We thank you for your openness to discussing this important issue with us and to supporting the deliberative and regional process, and we look forward to continuing this conversation with you moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Chad Hsu.

Members of the Council, my name is Jack Seed.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No problem.

I'm with the Seattle Marine Business Coalition.

We represent small and large marine businesses in Seattle that work to provide middle-class jobs for the city and for our region.

We oppose the action to docket the state industry plan and other actions that may become before you to address industrial lands until we have a comprehensive review of industrial lands as proposed by the mayor recently in the letter to the council.

The industrial lands in our city are important for maintaining jobs in our city, for sustaining working class opportunities for people from all education levels, whether it's high school, college, or elsewhere.

We don't have those jobs if we don't have the industrial lands in our city.

We must maintain them.

The maritime industry in particular needs to have those industrial lands to operate.

We have unique characteristics in our city that provide for a deepwater harbor, a freshwater moorage in our cities.

Those things don't don't, are not found elsewhere.

But we can't utilize that unless we have the lands to use, to access that and to use those ports and those, those mortgage facilities.

We need to maintain those and so any actions that take, that are taken to, to address industrial lands must be part of a comprehensive plan and considered under that plan first.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Carlos Constanza.

And Lou Bond is after.

Good morning, Chair Pacheco.

Thank you.

My name is Charles Costanzo, the American Waterways Operators, the National Trade Association for the tugboat, towboat, and barge industry.

Also serve on the board of the Washington Maritime Federation, statewide association of marine and trade groups that supports policies that strengthen Washington Maritime.

Also speaking in opposition to the docketing of the amendments.

I speak to you today as a sports fan, but also on behalf of the literal Seattle Mariners.

The city owes its identity to maritime trade, to the exchange of ideas, the coming together of diverse people and cultures, and the maritime industry that supports the livelihood of thousands of Seattle residents.

Today you will consider changes to the future land use map, and I would like to remind the committee that these choices will inform livability, sustainability, and livelihoods for future generations.

In 2017, the combined economic impact of Washington's maritime industry was near $38 billion, with a direct revenue of over $17 billion.

Over 70,000 Washingtonians are directly employed in the expanding maritime sector, with an average annual salary of $65,000.

The maritime industry and the industrial land it occupies supports an additional 190,000 jobs throughout Washington.

This vibrant maritime sector supports a diverse workforce and draws on a vast network of supplier businesses.

Jobs on our working waterfront and in our region's manufacturing businesses pay a living wage that can support a family and in many cases do not require a college degree.

We oppose the removal of manufacturing and industrial lands around the industrial epicenter of the Port of Seattle, along the Interbay Corridor, and in the Duwamish Industrial Area.

Please, let us stop taking lands from our manufacturing and industrial centers and giving them over for sports or entertainment complexes.

Let us stop threatening to take those lands.

It damages the confidence that businesses need to sink down roots and keep our communities working.

It hurts working people when we threaten to disrupt land use that sustains good-paying jobs and replace it with land use choices that support jobs that don't pay as well.

It makes our city less affordable, less livable, and more of a playground for the wealthy.

It's bad public policy.

We're a maritime city, a trading city.

They've made us what we are, and we can't seem to achieve escape velocity from these proven bad ideas.

AWO urges the City Council to remove from docketing actions that deprive the city's manufacturing base of industrial lands.

Alternatively, please refrain from actions on docketing until the city convenes a comprehensive citywide update to our industrial land use planning framework.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Lou Bond and Bryce Yowden is following Lou.

Thank you for hearing us today.

My name is Lou Bond, and I'm with the Melbourne Tower.

I've been the manager there for 32 years, 3rd and Pike.

Some of the concerns I continue to share is where zoning is different or up-zoned from zoning areas that haven't.

And we're at 3rd and Pike, and so zoning up-zoned between 2nd and 3rd and the half block where the alley adjoins.

One of the challenges that we have that this would now allow a director's rule to change is that the alley is our primary use for our half block for all transportation type needs, all deliveries of any kind.

Third Avenue became the bus lane, so we've lost our front door.

Pike and Pine have been restricted from three lanes down to one lane because of a bike lane and because of a bus that sits on Pike Street as a temporary place to park.

So cutting in on Pike or Pine has become very difficult.

Second Avenue and turning off of it A new development wants to be put there, and they want to kind of bypass all these kinds of impacts that are going to place a burden on our neighborhood.

And I don't think that this kind of design change that doesn't get to vet all of those kinds of concerns that comes up with a neighborhood plan that's going to really work long term, especially as zoning areas butt up against one another like ours.

So I'm really against this and I think that the SEPA is really important that we continue to be able to vet those concerns as it relates to neighborhood by neighborhood.

Because some of these zoning changes are very broad sweeping and they don't really deal with specific neighborhoods that are going to be greatly impacted like ours.

So we're hoping that you would vote that down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bryce Yodin.

Chair, members of the committee, my name is Bryce Yadin here on behalf of FutureWise today.

We're here in support of updating SEPA regulations and embedding state regulations into city code.

During this last 2019 session, FutureWise worked really hard on House Bill 1923. We don't take SEPA safe harbor gently at all.

We understand the needs and the requirements that SEPA provide for communities.

We also understand that we're in a housing and climate emergency.

And we have to weigh those, and we weighed those throughout the entire legislative session to figure out how to move forward.

I do want to tell you what this bill does not do.

This bill does not exempt SEPA.

The city of Seattle, when they go to update their development regulations or land use codes, are still going to have to go through a SEPA process.

In EIS, they're still going to have to do a number of, in EIS or a checklist, they're still going to have to do a number of outreach.

So just to be very clear, this bill does not exempt that.

The other thing this bill does not do, it does not exempt project level SEPA requirements.

So this is just for these 12 actions that are allowed under House Bill 1923. So I'm here today in support of that.

In addition, I think that moving forward we understand that We do need this, we understand that as we move forward we want a comprehensive conversation on those 12 actions that could potentially happen to make sure that we are taking in community input and understanding.

And we look forward to working with you on implementing this moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, if there is no objection, I'd like to extend the public comment for another 15 minutes.

Hearing no objection, we will extend public comment for another 15 minutes.

Next on our list is Alice Lockhart, and Jess Wallace is after.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Alice Lockhart for 350 Seattle Housing Team.

And for our children and our grandchildren and their hope of a livable future, I love that SEPA reform is on the same agenda today along with the Neighborhoods for All report.

In Seattle, the primary use of SEPA seems to have been to obstruct legislation that would allow climate-friendly development and help curb climate-destroying sprawl.

This use of environmental statutes to harm the environment and preserve a climate-destroying status quo is, frankly, shameful, and I am sick of it.

The climate clock doesn't allow for further delays and obstruction.

And happily, the state has helpfully updated their statute in ways that allows this SEPA reform at the municipal level.

Oh, no, my phone turns off.

Thank you for your work on this issue.

I also love the careful analysis in the Neighborhoods for All report, which chronicles how racial covenants, redlining, and more recently, exclusionary zoning have been used to restrict access to many of our most verdant and pleasant neighborhoods, where opportunity is today limited to those who are wealthy enough to afford a single family home.

We know that multifamily housing reduces per capita carbon footprints, and we know that only when Seattle's single-family neighborhoods become more dense will we be able to provide them with frequent enough transit for climate-friendly commutes.

For opportunity for our neighbors and for our children's and grandchildren's future, now is the time for SEPA reform and to welcome new neighbors to all of Seattle's formerly exclusive neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jess Wallace?

Good morning, Council.

My name is Jess Wallach.

I'm also at 350 Seattle, but here to speak on a different issue about the comp plan update and the proposed docket titled Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Storage and Production.

Yesterday, I was here with community leaders and over dozens of community residents talking about climate pollution and talking about the impacts of pollution on our health.

We know that fossil fuel infrastructure threatens our communities, it shortens lifespans, it creates respiratory issues, it leads to increased hospitalization, and it contributes to the climate crisis, which the World Health Organization has declared the greatest public health challenge of our time.

And local governments around the Pacific Northwest have recognized this and begun to use innovative strategies to protect the health and safety of local residents.

by changing land use zoning code to prohibit new major fossil fuel infrastructure.

Portland did this first in 2016, and since then we've seen communities in Whatcom County, Aberdeen, Vancouver, Washington follow suit.

Most recently, the Port of Vancouver just used its land use authority to prohibit new major fossil fuel infrastructure to protect local residents from fossil fuel threats and to make sure that the port is making smart investments in their economic future that are in line with the health and safety needs of local communities.

So I'm here today to encourage you to move this study forward and for the City of Seattle to consider what it can do to protect local residents from fossil fuel threats.

Earlier this year, King County made a similar move, passed a moratorium on new major fossil fuel infrastructure and kicked off a longer-term regulatory rewrite to consider what the county can do in its land use authority to protect residents.

The city and the county can work together on this, and the City of Seattle can build on what King County has already put in place in its comprehensive plan update to make sure that as we move forward into a climate change future, we're doing everything that we can to take care of people here, protect health and safety, and meet our climate goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Barrett Erickson, and then it's following Brittany Bush Belay.

Good morning.

My name is Barrett Erickson.

I'm the Workforce Development Director for the Sailors Union of the Pacific and a resident of Queen Anne.

I'm here because we oppose all removal of lands from the Maritime Industrial Center.

And I'm particularly here because I'm a member of the Seattle-King County Workforce Development Council.

And I'm also a member of something called the Marine Transportation National Advisory Committee.

And we advise the Secretary of USDOT on maritime issues.

My specialty is workforce development policy in the maritime sector.

And so from federal to local, maritime workforce policy is being developed.

over and it's in conjunction with the use of proper industrial lands use in the maritime sector.

The DOT has put out a solicitation for a major infrastructure ports grant that I'm sure that the Port of Seattle has applied for, for more infrastructure development.

The Workforce Development Council is developing policies around the maritime sector for job training.

All of these policies need industrial lands to be maintained.

So we have the jobs that are available to the young people that we are training for these jobs and that's pretty much what I have to say about it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next is Brittany Bush-Belay and then Steve Rustello.

Hi, good morning, Councilmembers.

I'm Brittany Bushbolay.

I'm the chair of the CR Club Seattle Group.

I am here this morning to express our support for city-level changes that put Seattle's CEPA process in line with current state guidelines that provide predictable and reasonable hearing examiner timelines and encourage infill development.

Encouraging infill development, as we know, is one of the most important urban environmental acts that we can take, attacking both of our major sources of emissions at the same time by welcoming smaller and more efficient homes into our city and reducing car dependency, making more people able to walk, bike, transit, and opt out of using cars.

I think these are incredibly reasonable changes that will actually protect our environment, allow us to act quickly, and we are in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Steve?

You all are for saving the trees in the Amazon, but how about the trees in Seattle?

Great environmentalists that you are.

We're going to strip SEPA.

We've already stripped out of design review a great deal of the public input.

If you're going to make SEPA move faster, put the beginning of the project, put your climate change, put your parking, put your scale as the two zones come together.

Take a look at access.

Have a real design review, not the color of the hardy board.

Not just the very simple things you're doing now, because design review is not doing its job.

If design review was doing its job, the argument that the backstop is getting too many things.

Why is the backstop getting too many things?

Because you're not doing anything at the front end.

That's the problem.

You're trying to keep people out of zoning.

the people who live near the projects, the people who work near the projects.

And we must put people back into the process or you're going to have continued problems.

Many people really wonder what's the difference between developer approved Democrats and socialists and Republicans.

You have the Trump agenda for land use, you know, big time developers get whatever they want.

Now, the smaller developers and people who are just trying to put a porch on their house, they don't like you that much.

But the big time developers seem to be your friends.

Let's come back to the citizens and let's bring people into the process.

You know, this council has been very hard to get close to.

I keep bumping into this sign that says property of the big time development industry or property of.

I don't think you really care what people think.

Prove me wrong, please.

Thank you, Steve.

Next is Dan McKinson, and then the final person on our list is David Ward.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for the time today.

I'm Dan McKiss.

I'm with ILW Local 19 and president of Washington Area District Council.

ILW represents workers on the waterfront, and we oppose docketing the amendments to the industrial lands.

We look forward to the industrial lands panel study.

We're pretty confident that it's going to find that the industrial lands are fully utilized.

You remember the great recession we had during that time, the lands in Soto, I think, are always in the high 90 percentile of usage, and it didn't decline.

Our membership during the Great Recession grew by 30 percent.

So there's jobs out there.

I want to point out one particular piece of property, Pier 1 over in West Seattle, real small piece of property, zoned industrial, fully utilized right now.

It has industrial equipment supporting industrial jobs in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is David Ward.

My name is David Ward and I'll be speaking to the SEPA issues today.

Changes to the SEPA policy is nothing short of outrageous gutting of SEPA and a truly anti-environmental bill and very pro-developer at the expense of the public.

Giving SDI say over SEPA policy when SDIC already has ignored many SEPA issues and waived many requirements for developers is truly damaging to the public.

You also would exempt further projects from SEPA review and limit the hearing examiner to 120 days.

Both very damaging policies also.

Removing the language to stop projects from moving forward while under appeal will allow developers to continue getting permits without their environmental policies that increase traffic, eliminate trees, displace people, create further infrastructure problems.

further, further damaging.

So the combination of these policy changes will make developers ecstatic since they have been, since it will create, so it will virtually eliminate developer accountability to SEPA, something that they have been looking for for years.

So I urge you, do not do this.

It's going to be very damaging to the city and it will make a lot of money for the developers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who did not sign up that would like to speak?

Oh, two.

OK.

Three.

Can you please be sure to sign up so that we can have it on the record?

Colleagues, if it's OK, I'd like to extend for another 10 minutes.

You can sign up after speaking.

Oh, no.

Please.

Lizanne Lyons on behalf of the Public Facilities District and the Public Stadium Authority.

I would just like to say that we unequivocally support preserving industrial jobs and the maritime industry within the city of Seattle.

Our proposal to look at a stadium district with respect to our comp plan amendment is based on the fact that there's virtually no industrial or maritime use left in the stadium district area.

And as Mayor Royer mentioned earlier, When it comes to talking about freight mobility, that land is already commercially zoned.

It will get developed, and it can be developed as offices, low-rise offices.

So our hope is that we can take advantage of the opportunity.

to do mixed use down there, including some workforce housing.

Because when we look at our population in Seattle right now, half of it is the age of 35 and under, and housing prices have doubled in the last six years.

So we don't want to in any way impact our industrial jobs or the maritime uses, but there's tremendous opportunity there now within this small area.

to do some very innovative things.

We've gained letters of support from the Housing Development Consortium, representing over 175 different agencies, from the neighborhoods, the Alliance for Pioneer Square, the residents of Pioneer Square from the Chinatown International District, also from all three teams, Friends of the Waterfront, and the Seattle Sports Commission.

This has been looked at for many, many, many years now.

It at one point was within a former mayor's top 10 priorities.

It has continued to get shelved so that every issue within all of the industrial lands of Seattle is studied and combined with this small area in the stadium district.

And we'd like to say it's unique and deserves some attention sooner than the next three to four years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jesse Simpson.

I volunteer with the Capitol Hill Renter Initiative and Share the Cities.

I'd like to speak in favor of the SEPA reform.

This bill has not been pushed forward by developers.

It's been pushed forward by the environmental community here in Seattle.

They recognize that SEPA as it currently stands is not fulfilling its purpose.

It's being used to block the urban infill and bike lanes that we need to advance our climate and housing goals as a city.

I urge you to make these common sense reforms and help make infill development within Seattle much easier to do because that is fundamentally what we need to do to meet our climate crisis and our housing crisis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jeffrey.

I am here to support the changes that you are proposing for SEPA.

I am not a developer.

I am a substitute teacher.

I am not a member of any organization.

My opinion is that we have a climate crisis and that whenever I read the news, Whenever I see what SEPA is doing, I never hear, oh, SEPA helped us do this environmental thing.

I always hear it's stopping bike lanes.

It's stopping all of these proposals that would be good for the environment.

So I really strongly to push forward with what you're doing.

And I guarantee you, developers, I'm sure, do support this.

I'm not saying they don't, but there's a lot more people in Seattle than developers, and we shouldn't just cross something off the list just because developers support it.

I'm not like some big developer-supporting person.

I'm anti-capitalist just like the rest of you.

But we need to do things that are going to help the environment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing that there are no additional speakers, we will close public comment and move on to the next agenda item.

Our first item of business today is a briefing discussion and possible vote on the comprehensive plan docketing resolution.

Noah, would you please read this item to the record?

Agenda item one, resolution 31896, a resolution identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2020 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments.

So we're joined by members of the council's central staff.

Will you both please introduce yourselves and refresh us on the docketing process?

Sure.

Good morning.

My name is Eric McConaghy.

Lish Whitson.

So most years, the council provides an opportunity for members of the public to propose changes to the city's comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan is a 20-year policy document that guides growth and development across the city.

This stage is not approval or disapproval of any particular change to the plan.

At this stage we are looking at proposals that have been received from the public and deciding whether or not they meet the council's criteria to move forward for further analysis and discussion.

Items that are docketed would be sent to the Office of Planning and Community Development and they would be requested to provide a recommendation.

And if anything is proposed to move forward, do environmental review on changes to the comprehensive plan related to that.

We received 14 amendment proposals this year.

Two of them met the criteria on their own to move forward.

And then the stadium district proposal could meet the criteria if considered in the context of the broader industrial land study that the mayor has proposed.

I'm going to just summarize the criteria that are in the resolution and then kick it over to Eric to discuss the resolution that's in front of you.

So the council's criteria are that an amendment needs to be legal.

It needs to be appropriate for the comprehensive plan, consistent with the comprehensive plan, It needs to be practical to consider the amendment, so there has to be enough time to study it.

Staff has to be available to study it.

And it should generally be consistent with the overall vision of the comp plan.

If an amendment has previously been proposed, then there needs to be a demonstration that things have changed since it was last proposed.

If an amendment would change a neighborhood plan, then there should be a demonstration that consultation has happened with the group that is sort of overseeing that neighborhood plan.

There needs to actually be some sort of material deference that would result from the amendment.

There are limits on proposals to amend the city's future land use map, so the amendment needs to be of a sufficient size that it would be actually visible on the city's future land use map and result in a significant change in an area.

Councilor O'Brien.

So, Lish, on that last one, I believe that was a change we made in the last few years, is the idea there if it's like a personal change, don't go through the comp plan process, but if it's more of a area-wide multiple blocks, that's what it needs to go through.

Is that the distinction there?

Right.

It has to be at least a block or larger in size, generally.

I'll only stitch in one thing, which is to say that changes to boundaries for urban centers or manufacturing industrial centers, because that's a significant boundary regardless of size, that that would be a change that would meet the criteria.

If there aren't any questions about the criteria that folks have been using, that you all have considered, that the Planning Commission and OPCD has considered to lead to the docketing resolution, if there's no questions about those, then I'll just step through the sections of the resolution that was introduced, if that's all right.

So the first section, as Lish mentioned, asks for OPCD.

I'll just say dockets, things to keep it simple.

The first section would docket two proposals.

They both have to do with changes to the flume.

One has to do with an area up in Northgate, and the second in West Seattle.

The second section deals with manufacturing and industrial lands.

It talks about looking at the stadium district proposal that was proposed this year in the context of overall analysis of industrial lands, as well as repeating the request the council has made before for three site-specific considerations for comprehensive plan amendments.

And what I said before, they were docketed in previous rounds and haven't come to a conclusion.

Section three asks for a look at impact fees.

This is also consistent with the previous resolution.

This would be looking at impact fees that are provided for under state law that would deal with public streets, roads, and other transportation improvements.

Hopefully on parks, open space, and recreation facilities, and school facilities.

Section 4 relates to amendments that were called for as part of the mandatory housing affordability legislation.

Section five, in similar fashion, harkens back to a previous resolution.

And this has to do with looking at amendments that the folks in Delridge have recommended.

This would ask OPCD to look at those, do environmental review, and bring those back to council.

Those are attached to the resolution, those proposals for changes to policy.

And then six and seven sort of take care of some of the heavy lifting of the bill, which is to formally ask for the review in section seven so that the record is complete, lists the amendments that were proposed this year that will not be considered so that there isn't sort of a blank spot on the map about what happened to the things that were proposed and weren't recommended for review.

And that rounds things out.

I do have one request for a technical amendment, but I can get to that after answering any questions about the sections of the resolution.

Colleagues, any questions?

No?

So just to be crystal clear, the resolution considering today just adds the amendments to a docket that would only cause further study, and so it's not an actual decision that this will happen.

And it's just for further consideration for OPCD, correct?

That's correct.

Historically, the comprehensive plan amendments were considered on a fairly consistent schedule.

The last few years that seems to have shifted a bit.

I believe last year we did comp plan amendments in December.

This year we did them in early March.

So I'm curious, do we have a sense of when we will be considering, when the council will be considering comp plan amendments next year, or is it just really hard to tell in today's environment?

I think in the coming year we should be on a regular schedule which would have the council reviewing amendments in March.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, just a process question.

I know that there's various pieces of the piece of legislation in front of us that folks have identified potential amendments or questions about how do you want to go about those?

Are you going to do with the technical amendment and then those some more substantive pieces?

My hope is to just deal with the technical amendment first, but with larger conversations acknowledging first that there are much, I know, I've heard in the last couple of weeks from both labor and port stakeholders with concerns in the industrial lands and that we continue the conversation.

My hope is that we can pass the docketing resolution today as is with continuing discussions and acknowledging those discussions with an expectation that we continue those discussions and bring them before the full council on Monday.

So that's my clarity hopefully to the process.

So what I'm going to hand it to now is hopefully a straightforward, easy to understand technical amendment.

Typically with the resolution dealing with docketing, it doesn't call for the mayor's concurrence resolutions in their sort of general form.

quite often call for the mayor concurring, and in this case, I'll own the goof.

I prepared it, and then late in the game realized that this resolution, because it is the council's formal request to the executive to take up this work, it doesn't require the mayor to concur.

So simply, this would remove the mayor's concurrence.

That would happen both in the opening section, the sort of resolution clause portion of the bill, and then on the signature page.

And that's all it does.

So I would move the Eric McConaughey goof amendment.

Thank you.

That's actually pretty great.

That's pretty great.

In the record, I have an amendment named after me.

It's a goof, but it's still named after me.

OK.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

It's a real amendment now.

It's a real thing.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

You're memorialized.

Okay, so Council Member Mosqueda, if it's okay with you, I'd like to proceed with moving forward with passing resolution and acknowledging that we continue the conversations with the expectation that an amendment comes on Monday for the full council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I appreciate the testimony that we've heard today.

I think that some of the things that have come to light from the last few weeks on this discussion and especially in our discussion with the public today really sort of drive home the desire to keep working on this to make sure that there is a sense of urgency around especially looking at industrial lands through a comprehensive lens across the city.

We heard a number of people today talk about the need to move forward with the comprehensive regional industrial review sort of panel or task force that the mayor is conducting.

I am interested in seeing if we can engage in a conversation briefly on the amendment that Councilmember O'Brien had initially worked on and I'm very supportive of as well.

I don't see a number on this one, but do you have copies of this?

I do have copies.

OK.

Mr. Chair, if we could, I'd love to talk about the content of this potential amendment so that we can have a discussion about it.

Sure.

A little slow on the draw.

Sorry.

Chair, if I could jump in.

Yeah.

You got a copy?

Two copies?

Maybe the same copy?

I maybe before we can talk specifically to this amendment I would love to spend a few minutes maybe talking just about some policy questions and I have a couple questions just about technical things about what's happening because the I've been through this a bunch but the legislation is just a little confusing to me and I could use some clarification and help with the public too.

This discussion is largely around manufacturing industrial amendments and what we're doing with the industrial zones.

And I want to just say that we have been asked, I think every year I've been here, for various changes to industrial lands.

In the more recent years, it's become clear that it's very controversial when we start talking about industrial lands.

There's multiple parties, we heard from lots of them today.

They're generally all parties that I want to support, and yet there's conflict there.

And battling out over amendments parcel by parcel seems like a very difficult, if not inappropriate way to resolve industrial land policy.

And so we have asked the executive, and I'll say the executive broadly because it's been multiple mayors, to come forward with a proposal on industrial lands for policies moving forward.

that brings together all these parties that certainly have conflicts around specific parcels and ultimately probably have some different visions of where it goes.

But there's also a lot of alignment that there's probably a sense that things aren't necessarily working great for anybody right now either.

And the hope for me has always been that if we have a policy Ideally that a mayor would propose after convening groups and that the council would then weigh in on Then it would be much more straightforward to consider parcel by parcel decisions in context of is this consistent with our policy or not For reasons that I don't fully understand, but I'm sure probably fair and legitimate that industrial land group has been convened and but no policy has come forward and the convening has been sporadic and I I continue to believe that that is a necessary step before we can legitimately look at industrial lands.

Now, we have made some changes to industrial lands in the intervening time.

Most recently, I believe, we withdrew a small parcel near Seattle Public University.

The reason that I was comfortable going forward with that is because all the parties who are here with disagreements were generally aligned about that and there's broad consensus.

But there's very few little parcels where there's broad consensus about.

And essentially we're at a place where various community members or organizations have the power to veto anything or stop something going forward, but there's not enough power to actually make some changes that could be worthwhile.

And I think that with the proper leadership that could happen.

What I'd like to see as we move forward, Chair, and we've talked about this, I hope we're in agreement, is some language in here that once again directs or asks or requests the executive to continue, restart, start, whatever we want to call it, this process to convene folks that have interests in industrial lands or lands near manufacturing industrial centers.

And come forward with a proposal that the city council and the public can evaluate and hopefully adopt some sort of new policy for a new framework.

So in light of that, what I would like to see with this proposal, and central staff, I'm sorry that I've been distracted the last two days and haven't been able to give you clarity prior to this, but would be that we not move forward with docketing any of the industrial land changes.

Rather, we ask that the executive once again come forward with this.

I believe that the executive is preparing to do that momentarily anyway, so hopefully we can do this in a way that we're asking something that she plans to do anyways.

and remove any of the other docketing items.

I think it's appropriate to actually state explicitly that there are projects that are in the queue that people have been waiting on for a number of years, including the stadium district, including a number of specific parcels, the Waska sites, one that I know is coming up that WSDOT will likely be selling in the next few years, but that the city council, at least at the moment, is not prepared.

I'd say it would be premature for us to even do a docketing action on these until we have some clarity about an industrial landfill policy proposal from the mayor that the council's had a chance to review and hopefully adopt.

I don't think I have quite that language ready today, and I think I fear that us wordsmithing that on the fly without getting legal review is probably problematic.

And so ultimately I would like to do that.

I think there are pieces of that that my previous amendments touched on.

So one was removing the language that as it's written here about a stadium district, One was removing the reference to parcels that are listed in Section 2a, b, and c, and rather include those in a more broad statement that says, these are the steps that need to be taken, and these projects are essentially, it's premature for us to make any sort of decision until that process happened.

And Councilmember O'Brien, just last, in the last committee meeting, Councilmember Herbold asked OPCD about whether or not we, the executive has had identified the stakeholders, a timeline, and so forth, and so It was still unclear.

And so I've been encouraged that we're seems to be moving in that direction.

But I do agree with you that I think it's best to have a conversation comprehensively about what best to do with the industrial lands.

This has been an issue that has specifically to the stay in district proposal.

It's been ongoing for so many years.

My thought process in accepting the recommendation was from the Planning Commission is that we When I spoke to the planning commission of chairs, they said to me, well, you know, we're not going to get into the industrial lands conversation, but objectively this has met the criteria.

Therefore, so I accepted that recommendation because objectively it met the criteria.

So again, I do think it's best that we have this conversation comprehensively.

I know we were close a couple of years ago.

And so I'm encouraged that you could find language that, and you'll work on some language would help us find a resolution that's most comprehensive for all.

Can I ask a specific technical question?

Lish, when you walked through the criteria, one of them was we won't reconsider something that's been considered before unless something has subsequently changed.

How does, like the stadiums, I don't know exactly, we've talked about that in past resolutions.

Similarly, I know we've talked about Pier 1 I think every year I've been on the council.

But those are still here.

Is that consistent with our criteria because they weren't actually considered or what?

They have been requested for, they've been added to the docket in previous years.

The executive has not provided a recommendation on them.

So sort of the book has not been closed on those particular items because there has not been resolution.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I don't hear any disagreement with anything that I also have been thinking and looking at the language.

I think the two-prong approach that both of you are describing is a really healthy conversation for us to require both of the executive if there's going to be a commitment to a task force.

We don't want to be, as one of the speakers said, we don't want to be here in three or four years.

having the same conversation yet again.

I also think that it behooves us to recognize, I think what you both have said, which is that identifying areas as the current legislation does in A, B, and C really does feel like a continuation of this piecemeal approach.

And as we think about the need to look comprehensively across the city, across all of our parcels, and to recognize that this needs to be done in conjunction with the exact workforce training opportunities and workforce opportunities on the horizon, industrial creation, new and emerging industries, and the need to create additional housing, I feel like it really does make more sense for us to pull the language today as suggested in this amendment and then work between now and when it comes to full council on Monday.

to do exactly what you two have both articulated to make sure that there is a clear timeline for that task force, to make sure that there's clear individuals or entities established as you discussed, and to make sure that we reaffirm our commitment to wanting to look at this through that comprehensive lens.

I love the language you use, I'm sure I didn't use it exactly right, but my desire today would be that We do move forward with the legislation amendment in section 2 as proposed in this amendment to really show that there is a need to not pull out certain components to be coordinated and to not silo our analysis and efforts.

I think we can also recognize that in the testimony that we heard, There is a real interest in making sure that as a city we are both investing in protecting and growing good living wage jobs, good union jobs.

And that we also recognize there's a balance that we need to create housing specifically, I wouldn't say additional office space.

housing.

And I think as we look at the land through this more comprehensive analysis that potentially is on the horizon with tight timelines, with a clear understanding of who's at the table and what the directive is, then we can do things like consider working ports and housing.

We can do things like we've already done with creating bike lanes along truck corridors.

That's my bike route every day.

I ride right down East Marginal Way and I have The benefit of waving at the truck drivers every day as I kind of weave in and out, and they've been tremendous to work with, but it doesn't have to be an either or.

I think if we pull these amendments out today and we look at this through a more comprehensive land, and I will be fully supportive of any amendment you bring forward on Monday to create those timelines, a clear schedule, and a clear understanding of what the task force will be looking at.

It would make me more comfortable with this because, again, I don't want to go down this piecemeal approach when a coordinated strategy is really what I think we need to support good living wage jobs, to support a more comprehensive analysis across our city as our city is growing, both to match the needs for industry and the folks who need to live here.

So I would love, Mr. Chair, to have you all consider the amendment that's in front of you as proposed in section two, and I believe seven.

So I see there's a couple paths we could go at the moment that are really more about kind of process and timing.

One would be to leave the underlying legislation unchanged, except I have a separate amendment unrelated to this that I will bring later.

With an understanding that we would work on a comprehensive amendment or set of amendments for Monday.

That would result in us passing out a committee the unamended piece of legislation which I know some people in the audience support and some people are fearful of.

Alternatively, what I think I hear you proposing is to make the amendment that I had proposed earlier which would strike the language about the stadium district and remove the references to the three parcels A, B, and C proposed for the flume docketing.

Today, which I do support removing, and so we could remove those today with the understanding that that's part of what I'm hoping to do and there's more work to be done by Monday.

In my mind, the end result is identical.

It's just a matter of do we do part of it today or do we save it all for Monday?

And I guess I'm curious.

It's my preference that we pass the underlying bill with the understanding that we will be working towards an amendment on Monday so that we can have the full support of the council.

Is there concern with the amendment as written, Mr. Chair?

Just wanting to run it by law.

Has this been run by law already?

I believe Council Member Bryan said it hadn't.

We've asked for review, but because of the timeline we've not received the answer.

But just to double-check, as we had the amendment language in front of us to begin with, the base legislation in Section 2 had been run by law.

We are basically talking about striking language that had already been run by law, so there wouldn't be a legal concern here.

Hopefully not.

I want to err on the side of caution, but in either way, if we were not to take action, we could figure it out by Monday.

If we were to take action today and it turned out law said you shouldn't have struck on that word, we could also add it back.

Councilmember Musqueda if you would make your case why you would like to take action today, and then I'm gonna be the middle sibling here apparently So I I want to be respectful of the fact that we all are interested in the same goals We all are interested in a comprehensive plan that allows for us to look at the the changing nature of our city the growing population the need to encourage more dense opportunities fully supportive by the way of the legislation you will be considering in a minute and want to thank the folks who come to testify especially around House Bill 1923 and all that we're doing to try to create a more inclusive and dense city as we do so though we also recognize that when we look at industrial lands there needs to be a comprehensive analysis and the way that the legislation has been written with these three sections or with these three areas specifically pulled out does not feel to me that is in line with the goals that you articulated.

Council Member O'Brien, you mentioned 2015, 2016, 2017, the ways in which we've tried to ask for this type of analysis.

to be done and it feels like that comprehensive review still needs to occur.

I fear that if we go down the route of having A, B, and C specifically called out like this, we won't be able to accomplish that comprehensive approach.

And I also think that it signals our interest on council in really ensuring that as the task force is pulled together, I know Mr. Chair you've asked for more details, repeatedly that those details truly do look citywide, that they are comprehensive in nature.

And my intent is to make sure that we don't get into a situation where we're signaling any interest in parceling out these individual parcels, but instead want that comprehensive analysis to be completed as you have requested multiple times.

So I would definitely like to move a consideration of amendment one.

sections one and two and seven so that we can send a clear message that the goal here is not to pull out these pieces, but the goal is to truly create a comprehensive analysis.

And then also make sure that we have language by Monday that includes that vision that you've articulated so clearly the both of you.

Okay, so I am one one thing why don't we call this the amendment to not dock at the stadium amendment proposal?

Because I have an amendment one that I'm gonna bring forward that's labeled that and I just don't want to confuse the viewers and readers Again I don't I think this is a Meaningful and yet at the end result.

I think we end up in the same place.

I actually think that I will Support you councilmember skater, and I'll explain my reasoning Even though we're going to end up in the same place if we move through with this including as is Although my intent and it will be clear to remove it at full council I'm concerned that I'm going to spend a lot of my staff's time responding to calls as to why this is in there and And so, which, and we'll just have to explain it.

Well, I plan to remove it on Monday, and I think I will side with you at this moment just to remove it now, since that's clearly where I want to go, with the understanding there's more work to do.

So if you want to move that amendment, I will second it.

I'd like to move the amendment to not dock at the stadium with the caveat that I fully support the chair in the need to create the sideboards, the timeline, and the details needed for the task force that you've been asking for over the last month plus.

And to be clear, I shorten that version, but it also doesn't dock at the three sites specifics there.

And I would second that.

Second.

We have a first and a second.

All those in support?

Aye.

against, and I'll abstain.

OK.

If there is no more discussion, then I move to adopt Resolution 316. I have more discussion.

Oh, we have more.

Sorry.

Yes, I have another amendment that I'll share with you all.

with this title, amendment one.

Noah, can I ask you to drop a few of these off of the table just so the public knows what this is?

This is an amendment around public health, climate change, and fossil fuel storage and production.

It would add a section, section six, amendments to the environmental element.

And this is what it says.

The council requests that OPCD, in consultation with the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, sorry, the Office of Sustainability, and the Environmental Justice Committee draft, evaluate, undertake environmental review, and provide recommendations for potential amendments to the environmental land use or utilities elements that would clarify the city's intent to protect public health and meet its climate goals by limiting fossil fuel production and storage.

We heard briefly in public comment today.

We've also heard over the past few years and seen what the county did about putting a moratorium and moving towards legislation that would prohibit fossil fuel storage and new fossil fuel investments in the county.

And this amendment would ask that we get a recommendation back on the comp plan to do something similar next year.

So I will move Amendment 1 if there's no further discussion.

Second.

Second.

All those in favor, please vote aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Amendment passes.

OK.

Any other amendments?

Discussion?

I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that your preference was articulated, and I do want to underscore my appreciation for your clear message to us and to the public and to the executive that you do want to see that task force move forward so that we're not in this staying pattern.

So we'll look forward to supporting the amendments that you bring forward on Monday regarding that.

And again, just to be clear, you know, I try to, especially with this role of land use, as objective as I can be in terms of my decision making in regards to what I think is the best collective interest.

So hearing if there's no more discussion, then I move to adopt Resolution 31696 as amended.

Second.

All those in favor, please, aye.

Aye.

The resolution passes.

Our next item, well, thank you both for joining us today.

Everyone else will be back before the council, the full council on Monday, August 12th.

The next item is a briefing on updates to our city's SEPA policies.

Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 119-600, 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.

All right.

For background, members of the Plus Committee were recently asked by several environmental groups to look at recent updates made by the state to SEPA and adjust city codes accordingly.

In response, I have worked with Council Member O'Brien in proposing this legislation to both align city policies to the states, as well as to make our other fixes and improvements to focus on SEPA on its environmental protection intent.

Lish is back from central council staff.

Lish, would you please give us an overview of the proposal?

Great, thank you.

We're going to be talking about this at the next four committee meetings, so I thought I would give some background on SEPA today, define some key terms that will keep coming up as we're discussing the bill, and then describe the key changes in the bill that's in front of you.

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act was adopted in 1971. It requires environmental review prior to governmental action.

So contrary to what you heard from some of the commenters this morning, SEPA requires that environmental review be completed before a governmental action is taken.

The goal is to provide information to decision makers regarding probable significant adverse impacts of actions that decision makers are considering.

And it allows for the mitigation of those impacts.

Unlike some other areas of city regulation, SEPA is really driven by Washington state law.

4321C and the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 19711 both dictate what needs to be in the city's CEPA regulations.

And so the municipal code's structure mirrors and incorporates verbatim sections of the Washington Administrative Code.

The Seattle Code can be more restrictive than the Washington State It can require that more things be reviewed than the state law requires, but it can't be more permissive than state law.

Some of the key terms that you'll be hearing as we talk about this.

Action under SEPA, and this is because SEPA is its own world.

It has its own terminology that is not necessarily used in other parts of the law or even land use regulation.

Under SEPA, an action is new or continuing activities proposed or approved by an agency.

It also includes new or revised rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures, or legislative proposals.

divides actions into two different categories.

Project actions, where something is going to be built as a result of the governmental action, and non-project actions, which are plans, policies, and regulations.

And it requires different levels of review for project and non-project actions, because there's different level of certainty for the environmental impacts of, say, building a street compared to adopting regulations that guide how streets will be built in the future.

The SIPA defines elements of the environment, which are specific topics that need to be considered.

Those are specified under the Washington Administrative Code and the Seattle Municipal Code, and they're split into the natural environment and built environment.

Unlike some comments that I think you've been receiving from the public, economic considerations are specifically not an element of the environment under state law and regulations.

Under SEPA, there are a list of projects that do not need to be studied.

So if unless something is under SEPA categorically exempt, it needs to be studied.

Categorical exemption means that there is a category of actions that the government is taking that does not need to be studied under SEPA.

At the end of the SEPA review process, there's a determination, which is the analysis that a proposal either has or does not have the potential for a significant adverse impact.

And the determination is published either under a determination of significance, which means that there's the probability that there will be a significant impact, in which case an environmental impact study needs to be developed, or determination of non-significance.

If there's a determination of significance and an environmental impact statement must be prepared, then an environmental impact statement must be prepared.

And generally, an environmental impact statement is called an EIS.

And there are draft EISs or DEISs and final EISs or FEISs.

A FEIS, a final environmental impact statement, and a determination of non-significance are each subject to appeal.

Anyone with an interest in the action being reviewed can appeal a DNS or the adequacy of an EIS to the city's hearing examiner when the determination is issued.

Or after approval of an action, they can appeal the SEPA determination or EIS to the courts.

And under those appeals, substantial weight is given to the agency's decision And the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it was clearly erroneous.

Finally, there is a concept of a lead agency, and that's the city department that is in charge of meeting the SEPA requirements.

So it's generally either a department that is reviewing a permit application from a private party or the lead department that is making a proposal.

So, Council Bill 119-600, there are three main changes that would be adopted under this bill.

The first is to incorporate new categorical exemptions for non-project actions that state law has said can be categorically exempt.

So, as I mentioned earlier, City law can be more stringent than state law.

Currently, city law is more stringent than state law under these categories, and so we need to loosen the rules to be consistent with the state law.

The legislation would increase thresholds for development in urban villages under the state's SEPA infill exemption provisions, and it would add a timeline for hearing examiner appeals.

There are two different categories of categorical exemptions for non-project actions under state law that the bill would incorporate.

In 2012, the state legislature amended SEPA regulations to exempt amendments to development regulations to ensure consistency with the adopted comprehensive plan.

So once the plan has been adopted, if there are development regulations that flow from changes to the plan and studied under an EIS, then those development regulations don't also need to be studied.

Similarly, development regulations to ensure consistency with changes to the city's shoreline management program, amendments to development regulations that provide increased environmental protection for critical areas, shoreline areas, And then amendments to technical codes to ensure that our technical codes, the building, energy, housing, plumbing codes are consistent with state law would become categorically exempt under this regulation.

These were all permitted to be categorically exempt under changes to state law in 2012, but they have not yet been incorporated into the city's regulations.

This year, the state legislature amended SEPA to provide interim and permanent relief from SEPA appeals.

So under this new state law, SEPA needs to be done.

These types of actions are not categorically exempt, but there's no appeal permitted of the city's SEPA determination.

So if you decide to amend the SEPA rules and act on a proposal Before April 1st, 2021, no appeals would be permitted of SEPA determinations for upzoning 500 or more acres around a commuter or light rail station, upzoning 250 or more acres in areas with frequent transit service, allowing duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments in single family zone lots, allowing accessory dwelling units in single family zones on lots that meet certain size limits, and that's already been done, adopting a sub-area plan, adopting a planned action ordinance like was done for Yesler Terrace, increasing categorical exemptions that encourage urban infill development, adopting a form-based code, allowing duplexes on each corner lot in single-family zoned areas, or allowing for subdivision of lots into smaller parcels.

This year's bill also permanently stated that transportation analysis under SEPA would not be subject to appeal based on transportation impacts if traffic or parking impact fees are imposed or the city's traffic and parking or traffic and parking impacts are explicitly mitigated by the city's ordinances.

Preliminary review by SDCI says that probably traffic and parking impacts are not expressly mitigated by the city's ordinances.

So either something would need to change in the city's ordinances or an impact that would need to be applied for these provisions to go into effect.

The second big change is to increase thresholds for development in urban villages.

Not all new development proposals are subject to SEPA today, and the state allows for higher thresholds for infill development projects that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

So currently under the city, Currently across the city, buildings with fewer than four residential units are categorically exempt.

They don't go through SEBA.

In denser multifamily areas, the threshold is 20 units.

And in our urban centers, the threshold is 200 units.

That only applies until Urban Center's comprehensive plan growth estimate has been met.

If the growth estimate has been exceeded or is close to being exceeded, then a project with 20 or more units needs to go through SEPA.

So the infill development regulations only apply up to the comprehensive plan growth estimate, at which point the lower requirements apply.

And the rationale is basically that the EIS for the conference plan has already studied a certain level of growth in our urban centers.

And we don't need to redo that analysis on a project by project basis.

The legislation in front of you would apply the same exemptions for development in all urban villages as for urban centers.

And again, once an urban village meets its growth estimate, or has had growth up to its estimate, then the lower requirements would apply.

The memo I prepared for today's meeting has information on where urban villages are in relation to those estimates.

It looks like Roosevelt is basically at or above its 20-year estimate already, given the amount of growth that's happening there.

But there are some other neighborhoods that are at basically 0% growth.

And when you say urban villages, is that both hub urban villages and the regular urban villages?

Yes.

Okay.

So that's essentially all of our urban areas.

There is a distinction, however.

We only have estimates for commercial growth in our hub urban villages.

We don't have them for our commercial in our residential urban villages.

So for commercial development, the SEPA exemptions would only apply in the hub urban village.

Got it.

And so with that in, so if you're doing a purely residential project, but if you were doing a, with ground level retail in a urban village, not a hub urban village, then that would include some commercial space, which would trigger a SEPA requirement?

Right.

Yeah.

And there's some, we can get into the weeds about mixed-use versus non-mixed-use buildings, but yeah.

And so if we wanted to change that in the future, that would just require us to have some commercial growth targets in regular urban villages, which is a completely different process.

Right.

The final major change in the legislation is to add a timeline for hearing examiner appeals.

Over the last 10 years, there have been 58 appeals of SEPA determinations.

The shortest appeal was 33 days, but the average length of a SEPA appeal is 124 days, and the median is 104 days.

Recently, some very complicated appeals with multiple appellants covering basically all elements of the environment, particularly the mandatory housing affordability appeal, took 392 days to hear.

How do time limits for appeals in this legislation compare to other jurisdictions?

Good question.

I was just about to get to that.

King County has time limits for their appeals.

They have a 90-day limit for an appeal that their hearing examiner can extend that to 120 days upon notice to the parties.

Then it can be longer if all parties agree.

This legislation sort of takes that framework, but based on past experience.

In Seattle, the limit would be 120 days, 150 days.

Basically, if the hearing examiner decides that's appropriate and then longer time frames would be allowed at the agreement of all the parties.

I looked at the accessory dwelling unit legislation, which had an appeal of its determination of non-significance and its appeal of the final EIS.

And if both appeals were limited to 150 days, four months would have been saved from that process.

It would have created more work for the attorneys and the appellants up front, they would have had to work faster, and in a complicated appeal they may have mutually agreed to extend that time frame, but it would have been completed four months earlier.

Councilman Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to double check on your question.

Were you also interested in kind of comparisons to other municipalities and other states?

That might be helpful, especially as we look at Minneapolis and all the great attention that they've received or other cities that are being innovative in this realm.

I'd be interested in that comparison as well.

Mr. O'Brien?

I'm certainly interested in what our peer cities do.

I just want to acknowledge that the complexity of different state laws are going to make it pretty hard for, I don't want to send you doing a two week research project if it's really complex.

If it's a straightforward comparison, that'd be useful, but it may be that state laws are just so different that it's hard to compare.

Yeah.

I'll see what I can do.

There are a handful of states that have similar environmental laws, and so there may be good comparisons.

How long do the hearing examiner appeals process, how long does that typically take in Seattle?

Over the last 10 years, the median length was 100 days, basically.

And it depends on how many parties there are, the number of issues that are being raised.

Again, the shortest was one person who raised one with the SEPA analysis, and that was done in 30 days.

How's that, Brian?

I'll just say that in recent experience, there's been at least a couple instances where the appeal process has been extended, sometimes multiple times, simply because attorneys representing a party were on vacation.

or at one point I think someone was switching attorneys and needed to essentially start the clock over and I am a hundred percent for people there should be an appeal process I think that that generally the intent behind the city's laws are great, but when I You know, when attorneys' vacation schedules preclude us from making policy decisions that affect the whole city, that doesn't feel fair.

And so an attorney can change their vacation plans, or a client can pick a different attorney who's not on vacation, but we shouldn't put the whole city on hold for those types of actions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate you bringing that up and I think as the chair has talked about and this council has talked about before, we need to be looking at all of our policies, especially in zoning and land use through this racial justice or racial RSJI analysis.

I brought this up when the hearing examiner was appointed as well.

It does seem like we're doing a disservice to our community at large when we allow for those who do have access to the ability to have deep funded pockets to fund attorneys to just take a decision to go on leave and go to other parts of the world, leave the country completely.

we're accommodating that schedule at the risk of what?

At the risk of how much housing, of how much time loss.

So I think it's important that we continue to bring that up and to recognize that that could be an impediment to both our desire to move forward as a city and I think that there's inequity embedded in that privilege that's associated with just being able to pick up and leave and go across the pond, if you will, for a vacation.

Council Member O'Brien.

I appreciate that point, Council Member Esqueda, and that has been a frustration of mine, and frankly, in conversations with the hearing examiner, a recognition of how this process work.

And so, again, as I mentioned before, I feel that it's important that there are appeal processes to certain types of decisions, and we will make some policy decisions about which types are eligible and not.

It's also critically important that that appeal process is equally available to all the people of Seattle.

And well, you know, this is one of those differences between equality and equity in some of the trainings we might go through.

Well, technically, this is equally available.

It doesn't matter your race or color or your religious beliefs.

You can still make an appeal.

The reality is individuals, communities, businesses that have more resources, have attorneys and are tracking this stuff and have lobbyists following this are much more likely to make these appeals.

And in fact, what the hearing examiner sees is that there are almost none or maybe no low-income communities or communities of color that are making these types of appeals.

And so the way this is playing out in reality is very inequitable.

And on top of that, there's been a recent trend, which I hope we nip in the bud immediately, where once people get into an appeal process, they then ask for special treatment.

They say, I know there's a legislative process, but we would like to have a private negotiation with folks.

In our Airbnb legislation, previous Council Member Burgess agreed to that process and agreed to, he made a personal commitment to what he would do.

He can't commit to any of the council members.

I don't think that was fair.

I was asked to do that as part of the backyard cottage legislation.

I was insistent that just because the Queen Anne Community Council has the resources to appeal doesn't mean they get to go into a private secret negotiation with me to try to come to a settlement.

We will have a legislative process where everyone can come and provide public comment.

People can send us emails and home, but I'm not giving one group a special treatment and tell the rest of the city, I already made a deal with this group and I'm done.

That's not fair.

And I don't believe that those groups are explicitly trying to be treated favorably.

I think they're trying to use every vehicle they can to get their agenda.

But the result, when you look at how the city governs equitably, is that it's not fair.

And so, again, that is a little more about how we as a council react when this happens, but I do think limiting the timelines on these is a way to try to level the playing field, and there may be things we need to do to help groups that never show up at these get resources so that they can make appeals and we don't see that just you know this isn't just about saying no more appeals it's like I would like to see you know low-income groups who have concerns that may not even be tracking legislation have the ability to say we would like to be able to appeal and have some assistance doing that too.

I concur.

But, you know, my thought process is, with regards to the appeals, is objectively, you know, who uses the tool?

And two, providing more clarity behind that process so that it's not, to Council Member O'Brien's point, used, we've seen examples of attorneys going on vacations, that was probably objectively a misuse of the process itself.

So I appreciate just providing more clarity on that, Lish.

Any other questions?

Have you finished your?

Not quite.

Sorry.

That's fine.

So this could add some hardship to the hearing examiner in terms of meeting these deadlines.

The legislation allows the hearing examiner to hire hearing examiners pro tem to help meet statutory deadlines.

As the budget process occurs, you should consider providing some funding to the hearing examiner to allow them to hire those hearing examiners pro tem.

Other changes in the regulations, it would allow the Department of Construction Inspections to draft director's rules regarding elements of the environment where there are complicated or where there should be sort of a consistent approach to doing an analysis of a particular element of the environment.

SDCI could draft a director's rule which goes out for public comment to sort of guide and provide more predictability and more comparability between environmental documents.

The legislation clarifies the analysis of subjects that are not classified as environments of the element under state CBER regulations are not subject to appeal.

For example, economic issues are not an element of the environment under state law, and they have been the subject of appeal in the past, contrary to the city's intent.

And finally, there's a contradictory section in the SEPA regulation that contradicts the land use code about when a permit can be issued.

So this legislation deletes the SEPA language and relies on the land use code language, which is much clearer and provides better direction.

And that's it.

So on those pieces, I'm supportive of all of those.

Let's see, I wish I had your list in front of my list so I could remember them.

But the getting rid of the ambiguity between the two certainly makes a lot of sense.

What were the other points you just made?

Remind me.

The STCI director's rules and elements of the environment that are not subject to.

The director's rule, I think.

It would be great, you know, you've referenced New York City that I think has a guideline.

It would be great to give clarity so that I think we would all benefit from this.

I think the council would benefit, the hearing examiner would benefit.

community would benefit understanding, you know, what the process is to go through.

And I think potentially to our, to whether this is a tool that's used equitably across the city, providing clarity to groups who are overwhelmed by a legal process, it would be great if there was a simple checklist so without an attorney someone would at least know how to do that.

So I think that clarity is a great step.

And then, sorry, again, the other one?

Clarifying the environment.

Oh, yeah.

The environment.

Things that aren't elementally.

As a decision maker, you know, it's important that we remember what, you know, you started out, why we have SEPA laws and NEPA laws, and it's to make sure that as a policy maker, which I am at the moment, is informed as I make a decision.

It's not necessarily to tell me what to do, although as someone who's been on the other side of these, I often wish that the person would follow exactly what is best, but at least we have to be informed.

And I think it's great that the city says, while you're doing the analysis, do some economic analysis too, because that will help inform a policymaker.

But as you mentioned, it was never the intent.

that if an economic analysis is not agreed to by some party that they can appeal the adequacy of the economic analysis.

That was something that we voluntarily added on top of state law so that we just have more information.

But clarifying that those types of additions are not subject to appeal.

They're simply things that we've asked so we can be even more informed is really good.

Council Member O'Brien, can you give a specific example for the broader public of when it has been used?

Yeah, so right now, maybe Liz should probably know better, but the Burke-Gilman Trail is, again, for like the umpteenth time, it's been appealed through SEPA, and we met all the requirements except the, this was the King County Superior Court, I believe, went back and said, you need to do more economic analysis because we don't think that was sufficient.

I mean, is that?

Yeah.

And so, you know, by clarifying in our law, you know, they're saying, you didn't follow your own law.

And we believe that our own law is pretty clear that this is an additive thing that's not appealable.

But however, for whatever reason, it wasn't clear enough and the Superior Court judge disagreed.

But we can clarify that so that that mistake won't happen again.

You and I have had this conversation before, and so that's why I wanted to make sure for the public that people know more specifically.

And if I can make just a broad statement, I appreciate a lot of the comments we heard today.

I've received some emails from some of the folks that are here today, too, that I've had a chance to read.

I believe that it's critically important that we have environmental protection laws like SEPA and like NEPA.

And I think it's also critically important when they're not working to meet the needs of what they're intended to do that we adjust them.

And as someone who has served on boards and serves today on boards of environmental organizations, very cautious about changing those things for fear that they might do more damage than good.

But when I look at what's playing out in Seattle, you know, three recent examples, one that we're still in the middle of, the Burke-Gilman Trail.

That has been appealed multiple times by a small handful of businesses that have prevented a bike lane from being built for decades now against the wishes of the environmental community.

Backyard cottages.

Broad support amongst environmental organizations, a neighborhood group appealed that because they didn't feel as good.

Not clear that that group, it's not required that they even represent the broader neighborhood, it just requires that someone shows up that can figure out how to do it.

I am currently unable to move forward on transportation impact fees because developers have challenged the SEPA adequacy of us including a transportation plan and the comprehensive plan.

We have been delayed over a year now or almost a year in implementing transportation impact fees because developers have challenged.

We have developers, we have a select group of homeowners, we have businesses.

I have not seen in my 10 years here An environmental group challenged the SEPA analysis.

And that's why I believe we have environmental organizations here today saying we are ready for this to be changed because this law that we have supported is being used to undermine the very policies We are trying to advance.

Now, we can argue about who gets to speak for the environmental community and argue whether these policies are good.

Again, there should still be processes for this.

But on certain things, we've said, no, we want to go this direction.

Let's make that easier.

And other places, we say, let's have an appeal process.

Let's figure out how to resolve that in three or four months, not a year.

That's my objective.

I know we're gonna have a lot more conversations, so I'll hold back on my pontificating anymore for a little while here, but hopefully we can get something resolved that looks similar to this in the next month or so.

Now, I know that you and I are pretty much on the same page on this, so I will try to be as reserved as I can until the full council hopefully can get there, and Council Member Mosqueda as well.

But no, I was quoted earlier about what I said in terms of my appointment process, and Council Member Mosqueda had made the comment about how lived experience has shaped so much of our policymaking.

And so for me, it's, you know, the luxury of being able to live close to where I work, be able to move without a car.

And how do we create those opportunities for more people?

And when I see abuses of a process that is not being used in an intended form, and more specifically to the reference examples that you've said, I think this is an opportunity for us to say, how do we reform it so that we can provide the infill and the density that we need around transit?

With that, I know we'll have more discussion on this.

If there are no further questions, I'd like to move this to the next meeting on September 4th.

Councilor Mosqueda, did you want to say something?

Sure.

I just wanted to say thanks to both of you, the Chair and Council Member O'Brien, for your leadership in moving forward on implementing the components of House Bill 1923. into our city statue.

This was not a battle that was won easy in the halls of Olympia, and I know that some people who were in the audience today participated on behalf of the city and then as allies with the city or the city partnered with to advance what the community really saw.

as you both articulated, as an opportunity for us to update the way in which this tool is being used to more appropriately apply it to our desire to protect the environment.

We know one of the best things that we can do to protect the environment is to stop being a mega commuter city, and we are the third largest mega commuter city in the country, people traveling one and a half, two hours a day to get to work and then back home.

So I'm really excited about the way in which this legislation both marries environmental principles and housing justice allies in combination with, I think, good governance and city planning strategies.

I just want to say thanks to some of the folks that we worked with during the legislative session, especially Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, who was a huge champion on this.

the Sierra Club and Future Wise and Sightline as well.

And then also a huge amount of appreciation for the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO who worked on this because we recognize workers need a place to live as well as want to do the hard work that they do every day.

And then lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you to the AWC.

We had some tussles back and forth on positions on this bill and ultimately The team who was representing us as a large member of the Association of Washington Cities did help come up with some language in the end that allowed for us all to be supportive of moving forward on 1923. I'm looking at Alicia if you remember those battles in the last few weeks of session there.

And just want to acknowledge that it's not easy with a moving target during the legislative process.

Amendments can change your position wildly from very supportive to not supportive in what they did.

with us recognizing our strong desire to move forward on this legislation was I think help carve that path forward.

So I know it's not easy and just want to thank those leaders and the legislators and our lobby team and the AWC for helping us get to a product that we can now move through your committee with great urgency as you've all described today.

So thanks to you two for continuing to push this forward.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Wellish, thank you for being here today.

Again, we'll have the next discussion on September 4th.

Our final item of business today is a briefing and discussion with the Seattle Planning Commission on their Neighborhoods for All report.

Noah, would you please read this into the record?

Agenda item three, Neighborhoods for All report.

Thanks for coming.

You didn't filibuster or anything.

Morning.

Morning.

Morning.

Will everyone at the table please introduce themselves and kick us off?

Good morning.

I'm Vanessa Murdoch, Executive Director of the Seattle Planning Commission.

Good morning.

My name is Michael Austin, and I have the pleasure of serving this year as Chair of the Seattle Planning Commission.

My name is Rick Moeller.

I am a member of the Seattle Planning Commission.

All right, well, I think we're getting ready to go.

Thank you so very much for your report.

And I'm not sure everyone at the table has had a chance to review it, but I wanted to highlight it because I think there's just a lot of good things that were stated in the report, but also just being able to amplify where I think the direction that the city should be going and for what we can do moving forward in this committee to keep us going.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and council members for the opportunity to brief you on our recent report, Neighborhoods for All.

We're going to start with a little context of what urged us to write the report.

And Michael and Rick are going to provide highlights of the observations as well as some suggested strategies.

And we certainly want to leave time for questions.

Thank you.

So with it, we would personally like to acknowledge in this report just who you are as a planning commission.

I should note first on the next slide, actually, I apologize, Rick, if it's okay to bring the mouse over.

You know, we do exist.

We are in the position of privilege to exist, to serve you, the mayor, and our departments at the city, and advise you all on different planning policies, practices, and programs at the city.

We are comprised of 16 individuals who represent different areas of the city.

And we serve as an independent advisory body on that.

And I should note, too, that we are made up of renters and homeowners as well on here.

And of course, one of the things that we do steward in this process is the comprehensive plan.

So both the previous one and as we work into our next comprehensive plan update, we always try to keep in mind the work that we do and just making sure to revolve around the comprehensive patent policies and implementation on here.

And with that, something that we noticed was kind of interesting.

The next slide kind of identifies something that really stood out to us as we were looking at our housing policies.

And I know this information is not shocking to many, and I also want to highlight that we have had the privilege of also knowing that many of you have also looked at a report before, and so we really do appreciate the time to come and speak to it again.

But this really stood out to us that the fact that Seattle over the last 10 years between 2010 and I'm getting that date wrong.

2007 and 2017 actually grew by over 100,000 residents, yet at the same time the number of units being produced, of course, has not been up to speed at the same time.

And this, of course, has very interesting impacts to the city.

And not just impacts today, but also looking at the past history of redlining our community as one highlight aspect of the history that we've had of racial disparities that have been placed on the city.

And this of course is just one example, but of course we also have other aspects such as racial covenants and also different types of land use practices that of course have negatively impacted our communities of color in the community.

What this means, of course, is that has trickled into our future generation's ability to gain wealth, whereas our communities of color have not had the same advantages and privileges as the communities that have lived in the communities that are identified as blue in here who have been white communities.

And, of course, that trickles into what we see today.

Not only just the fact that this map that's identifying here is identifying all the areas that are single family zones, Many of those neighborhoods were previously identified in blue, while many of the other areas that were identified as either hazardous or definitely declining have had been upzoned or experiencing upzoning and taking on much of the burden of our growth in our community.

So with it too, we wanted to put together a series of observations just to highlight what we have found in our study.

And this study has taken place over the last two and a half years, and so much of the information might be from 2017 and 2018, but we still feel like it is very relevant today.

And one of those things is looking back at the map itself, and something that really stood out to us is According to our calculations, and what we did in this calculation was we, because many communities and many people calculate single family zones differently on here.

And for us, it was taking a look at all the land that's identified for residential uses.

And when you factor out all the other uses and just focus on residential, over 75% of Seattle's residential lands is identified for single family uses.

And our report does, oh, sorry.

Sorry, I apologize.

And definitely let us know if you have any clarifying questions along the way on here.

But only about 5% of the growth within the last 10 years of our study or this area that we looked at in our study had actually taken place in single family zones, while much of the majority of growth has still taken place in our multifamily zones.

And that has a huge...

Just a question on the last slide there.

Thank you for the breakdown on the amount of land in Seattle that's zoned for single-family use.

So according to the map that you have here, when you look just at residential land, 75% of our residential land is zoned for single-family use.

And is that taking into account the more recent, quote, citywide upzone that we did?

That's a good question.

So this study was done prior to the...

Prior to the passage of MHA.

So the 6% of single-family zoned areas that were covered in MHA are not reflected in this report, which was released in December of last year.

which we have held up many times in full council to underscore the importance of why we were moving forward with the MHA rezone and the conversation that we have had over the last year about the need for the racial equity toolkit to be applied to our current planning policies.

So I put citywide in quotes because I think we all know that while it spanned the city, it wasn't truly a citywide up zone.

And as you mentioned, it was just 6% of the land It would be helpful, I think, for us to make sure that nobody gets misinformation out there to rebut the 75% number.

And if we do some back of the envelope math, I still believe we would be close to three quarters in terms of how much land would be zoned for single family use.

I also think that there's another calculus that folks have done when they take out, for example, land that has parks and roads and public right of ways.

And the number continues to show that we have the vast majority of land across our city that's zoned for single family use.

So being able to now calculate in this 6% number, I think could help us continue to articulate the immense amount of land that's currently zoned for single family use.

The second thing, if I may, since our good chair is not here.

I just wanted to say in my quick second, thank you for producing this report because we have brought it up to the dais and held it up many times.

And in conversations with our friends and counterparts in Minneapolis, when we asked them what led them to a residential zone change throughout the city, they said that it was the backbone understanding that their current policies were facilitating and extending continued housing segregation based on the fact that former redlining policies and And lending policies had not equitably allowed for people to live across the city.

And I think that with the understanding that this type of analysis has led to other cities being able to move forward in ways that are both courageous and also completely overdue in our need to act as public policy makers.

I'm very excited that you all have taken this report on and that you have moved forward with publishing it.

And I think we all know many of these elements, but having the data points in hand to do what I think Minneapolis has done to hold up the evidence of why change to our zoning policy is so needed is incredibly important.

So thank you for acting with conviction and with urgency last year and I'm very excited that this is a great way to dovetail to the bill that the Chair and Councilmember O'Brien have just discussed because this is the why that we need to act with urgency.

Thank you very much and with it to is another observation that does highlight this need in a different kind of way too.

This is looking at it in terms of the idea that we talk about, which is the missing middle.

And what is the missing middle?

And here, what we identify is the fact that a large number of units are either going to be single family that are constructed or 20 plus units in one building.

Yet at the same time, we're kind of missing or have a lag in the production of units that are more of the multifamily, but smaller number of dwelling units per building.

So that's totally housing units across the city as of 2016?

Correct.

Something else that we identified with here is kind of linking it back to just providing opportunities for individuals in Seattle, in our community, whether you're a new resident or old resident or a multi-generational family that's living here and wants to stay here.

It's important for us to identify that there needs to be housing opportunities really to make sure we can provide for all the individuals that want to be in Seattle and stay in Seattle on here.

And so what's happened is because we have huge disparity between housing typologies, whether it's multifamily down to single family, it really limits the opportunities for housing that we can use to accompany or accommodate those who wish to age in place in their community or those who are moving here younger and wish to stay and put on roots.

And something else that really stood out to us that we thought was fascinating in the study was the fact that many of the neighborhoods that we often kind of speak to or feel nostalgic about in terms of character, and I know that's a loaded term, but just the way that we appreciate a lot of the communities.

One, this example is taken from Capitol Hill, but we also talked to Fremont and Wallingford have actually experienced down zoning.

So the units here are actually duplexes, and they were constructed before they were actually down zoned into single family units.

Those are non-conforming uses the photo shows like this looks like a Capitol Hill home it happens to be the two families living in there's two doors, but Doesn't detract from the neighborhood at least in my view We would argue that it contributes to the neighborhood Appreciate that

And linking back to why we talk about racial equity and why it's important, this chart really is just exemplifying one other kind of indicator that identifies how the previous history of our race-based kind of legislation has actually trickled into the lack of opportunities for our communities of color as opposed to our communities that are white.

And in here, Seattle, it's Home ownership rate by race, according to the 2016 American Community Survey, indicates that 51% of our homeowners are white, and then it trickles down less so for our communities of color.

And when it comes to distribution of home ownership, we have a different indicator in our report that actually identifies that that rate is actually much higher.

Do you also have further information on the age breakdown?

So for example, like millennials?

That's a good question.

So we don't have that in the report, but it's definitely something that we can look into.

And something else that really stood out to us is the fact that we talk often about the fact that we are one of the fastest growing cities, depending on how we look at the statistics, in the United States.

Yet at the same time, some of our neighborhoods are actually experiencing a decrease in the number of individuals living in that area.

And I should note that University of Washington's major institution boundary should be exempt from this decrease.

But the other areas that are highlighted in various shades of red or pink are areas that we do consider and think this is very interesting.

And it also contributes to how we think about its ties to climate change, which, and going to the next slide, this just exemplifies one example of why it's very important for us to make sure that we really think about this in a holistic manner.

And as Council Member Mosqueda talked about at the previous briefing, it's important because as we continue to, if we're not providing opportunities to ensure that residents can remain in our community, and we do push them out, then that does increase the amount of vehicles on the road, which is a huge contributor to CO2 emissions in our environment.

And this is just one indicator that's pulled from Seattle's Office of Sustainability and the Environment, but you can also find very similar indicators also from PSRC's 2050 Vision Plan, which has very similar information.

So this is actually pretty new information, but it's something we felt was very relevant to share.

So Michael's reviewed the observations that we have in our report.

I was going to quickly go over some of the broad strategies that we're proposing or suggesting related to expanding housing opportunities across the city.

This is not these are not legislative proposals.

These are just simply some broad ideas.

And the first of those is to expand urban village boundaries to reflect a 15 minute walk shed around frequent transit.

Now the urban village strategy is based on sound transit-oriented development planning principles, but its implementation really is not, particularly in residential urban villages.

These village boundaries should reflect a 15-minute walkshed around frequent transit, but instead what they reflect is really what was negotiated with adjacent property owners a quarter century ago.

And we really think it's time for us to revisit and revise some of these boundaries.

The second strategy is to designate new urban villages and to establish criteria for that designation around existing and planned services.

So this image is of Madison Park, which has a vibrant commercial district, a waterfront park, and is slated for bus rapid transit in the future.

And we think this is one of a number of locations around the city where we could consider establishing new urban villages.

You have some fans in the audience.

We're also suggesting the creation of a new class of small-scale urban villages, or what we call urban hamlets, around existing small commercial districts, parks, and schools.

Now, I live in District 6, between Wallingford and Green Lake, in a small commercial area which has come to be called Tangle Town.

We have a very small commercial district, could very much benefit from additional housing, a greater variety of housing, and the people that live in that housing could support the small-scale local businesses.

If you ever decide to leave Mike's district to come District 4, you're welcome.

I love that concept, Rick.

I similarly live in what I would call Upper Fremont, and there's a commercial node there that is vital.

I mean, it's one of the greatest things about living in Maryland.

Perfect for a hamlet.

And yet, you know, we're not the same as major Fremont, and so another classification to describe where those are would be great.

We suggest creating a new zoning designation that promotes the intended physical form and scale of buildings by renaming single family zoning to neighborhood residential.

Now there could be several categories of neighborhood residential that would allow for housing types to be more tailored to their existing neighborhood context in contrast to the existing one size fits all single family zoning that we have today.

And unlike the single family zoning designation, neighborhood residential would speak to the intended form and scale of the neighborhood and the buildings within it.

and not be suggestive of who should and shouldn't live in the neighborhood.

I think it's also important to note that the single-family zoning designation has really been a misnomer since the mid-1990s when we passed our original accessory dwelling unit legislation allowing two households to live on a parcel.

I appreciate that point, Rick, and I appreciate your work on that, and I'm sure you're all aware, but the legislation we just passed out for the comp plan docketing included recommend an alternative name for single-family zones such as neighborhood residential and propose comprehensive plan amendments to implement this change as appropriate.

So we are taking your advice an hour before you even gave it.

That's great.

We appreciate that.

Very prescient.

You know, having regular, being the chair of land use, you have regular meetings, standing meetings with these great folks.

And so try to take advice where you can get it.

So the next strategy, yeah, I'm up to speed here, is to foster a broader range.

of housing types in areas with access to essential components of livability by allowing a greater diversity of housing types near parks, schools, and other services.

Now, in addition to this, we could develop design standards to ensure that new development is compatible and scale with the existing neighborhood.

But we should revise parking requirements to prioritize housing and open space for people over cars.

The next strategy is to retain existing houses while allowing housing types that allow more people to live in every neighborhood by allowing existing detached houses, for example, to be divided into multiple units, to allow additional units on corner lots, alley lots, along arterials and zone edges.

So, for example, instead of just looking at lot size and lot width and depth, we could also look at lot type which would provide us with greater flexibility.

We could incentivize the retention of existing houses by allowing flexibility when more units are added.

And the city could provide technical and design resources for homeowners to redevelop and retain ownership of their properties as opposed to selling them off to a developer.

The fifth strategy is to encourage compact development of detached houses on all lots.

by reducing or removing minimum lot size requirements.

We could create incentives to build multiple units, especially on larger lots.

And we could limit the size of new houses.

Now we just passed accessory dwelling unit legislation, the most progressive in the country that does those last two things.

But we think we could go further by providing opportunities for more home ownership.

in our single family neighborhoods and allow more households access to the wealth building potential that homeownership provides.

The final strategy is to ensure that new housing in every neighborhood supports greater household diversity.

We have an ever-growing number of seniors who want to age in place and are having difficulty doing so.

We have extended families, multi-generational families.

We have groups of unrelated adults who would like to live together in intentional communities like co-housing, but we simply don't have enough flexibility in these zones to accommodate all these different kinds of households.

We also suggest a formal definition of family-sized housing.

and the adoption of family-friendly design guidelines that would encourage things like the courtyard apartments that you see here that simultaneously provide increased density but also provide shared open space where families can thrive.

So those, that's just a brief overview of some of the suggested strategies that we have in the report.

Sorry, thank you.

On the courtyard apartments, There's a few of those in my neighborhood, and they're just, they're great.

They, you know, from the aesthetic, they're a fairly small scale.

The folks I've known who've lived in them love what they provide.

They're typically one floor living.

I'm currently I'm looking for a place for my mom to live without stairs, and that's hard to do.

She can use stairs just fine right now, and so that's what she's attracted to, because that's where most of the options are.

That may not always be the case.

But we don't see those, is the challenge that right now the place where you build a courtyard building is the same piece of land that you can build a five-story apartment building on, and so it just doesn't make financial sense to build five units as 150. And so if we wanted to do this, we need to put that in the context of you could build single family homes or a cart yard and then it's going to be more, we'll see more options taking it, is that?

Yeah, I mean first we need to allow it in more places.

Okay.

And then secondly we would need to incentivize it through the specific land use legislation that we would put in place.

And that's really a significant part of this effort is to start a conversation so we could begin talking about how could we do this.

What would we really like to do, and what might the legislation look like that would incentivize those patterns of development?

And you talked about this in the duplexes, similarly with courtyard apartments.

How complex and what are the likelihood we get it right, whatever that means.

With the design standards to say, I don't know, the courtyard apartments I see are probably 60, 70 years old in my neighborhood.

They're probably different building materials today.

They're not going to look exactly like that.

People will talk, you know, fear that these will be big ugly things.

I mean, do you think we have a high level of confidence that a process that took community input, we could design some, put some standards in place that would create something that we're hoping to get?

Yes.

It will be a very interesting conversation because one could do, for example, form-based codes that are very prescriptive, or you could have no design standards whatsoever.

I think what we'd be...

I'm kind of speaking out of turn here, but I think what we would likely be endorsing in the commission is a balance, is an appropriate balance that is both respectful of the existing context, but also provides enough flexibility for us to look forward and really address our current and future housing needs in these neighborhoods.

One of the things I have to continually remind myself is that the building types that we hold up today as the icons of the character of the neighborhoods were probably highly controversial at the moment they were being built because they were taking over farmland or whatever it was at the time.

And so it does evolve.

Yeah.

I mean, single family neighborhoods were very controversial when they were built.

We heard a lot of the same criticisms at that time that we hear today.

Everything looks the same.

That they were cheaply built, they were taking up too much land.

That's not to suggest that the buildings that we're building today will be held up 100 years from now as fine examples of architecture.

But I think it's really important to note that change is difficult.

And much of this is just the sort of shock of the new.

And we will get used to it as we move forward.

Well, thank you.

And to your point, you know, one of the things that I've been mindful of is through this appointment also got the experience of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the broader topic about Vision 2050. You know, as the region grows and we expect, anticipate 1.8 million new residents, where is everybody going to live?

And so, you know, do we want folks to be more living in the suburbs or do we want a future that has our communities being more walkable and livable?

And so I think your report draws a pretty good blueprint for us how to get there.

I appreciate the work that you've done, the volunteer time and effort, because I know it's a labor of love.

So I appreciate it.

And with that, I just want to say thank you and make sure that you all had the opportunity to daylight your work before the council and as well as to this committee.

Thank you.

We really appreciate the opportunity.

Very much so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So this concludes the August 7th, 2019 meeting of the PLEZ committee.

As a reminder, our next regular committee meeting will be September 4th at 9.30 a.m.

here on Council Chambers.

Thank you all for attending.

We are adjourned.

you