Seattle City Council Sustainability & Transportation Committee 6/18/19

All right, good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

My name is Mike O'Brien.

I'm chair of the committee, joined by Councilmember Pacheco and staffed by Kelly.

Today is Tuesday, June 18th, 2019. It's 2 p.m.

We have three items on the agenda, but a couple of them are quite meaty items.

The first is legislation around backyard cottages.

We will be discussing that legislation, considering amendments, and my intent would be to vote on amendments and vote on final piece of legislation out of committee this afternoon.

The next item we'll consider an appointment to the move Seattle levy oversight committee and then finally we have a briefing from Seattle Department of Transportation on the bike master plan implementation plan.

Before we jump into public comment, we're doing something a little bit different today.

So because there are two topics of such interest, I have two separate sign-in sheets, one for folks that want to comment on the backyard cottage legislation and a separate sign-in for folks that want to comment on the bike.

master plan.

I'm going to do public comment twice during this committee.

So we'll start with public comment for the Backyard Cottage legislation, and we'll go up to 20 minutes for that.

And then we'll close public comment, discuss that piece of legislation, and then I will open up public comment again a second time later in the meeting.

to do that.

And so Council Member Pacheco, would you be open to considering an amendment to the agenda to add a second public comment in advance of the final agenda item?

I'll move that.

Great.

So all in favor of amending the agenda as I described, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Great.

So If you're here, and when I call your name, I'm going to start with the signage sheet that says ADU and general public comment.

If someone on that would like to reserve their comment for later because you signed up and know the wrong one, that's great.

Just let me know, and we'll make sure your name gets added to the other one.

But you're welcome to speak on other issues if you came at 2 o'clock, and that's the only time to provide public comment.

That's totally fine, too.

We're going to go.

We have at least 20 people signed up.

And because we have two media agenda items, I'm going to keep this first public comment period at 20 minutes.

So, folks, we'll have just one minute for public comment today.

to get as many people in before we shut public comment.

I'll just note for the record, we did have almost three and a half hours of public comment at the public hearing last week, which was great.

Appreciated so many folks coming out.

But we look forward to hearing from more today.

So we'll start.

Paul Thomas is first, followed by John Lombard, and then Colleen McAleer.

Again, you'll each have one minute.

And when the microphone is clear, Paul will come forward.

Thank you for letting me speak.

I've got five suggestions to do with backyard cottages.

First of all, please streamline the permitting process, especially for existing garages.

I built a shed in the backyard, a little garden shed, and navigating the permit process was by far the most frustrating and exasperating experience I've ever had, and I'm 54 years old, so I think that says something.

Will you pull the microphone in front of your mouth too, Paul?

Thanks.

I can't face doing this again so my garage sits empty instead of being converted to housing.

Number two, please remove the five foot setback requirement.

It makes absolutely no sense to use a five foot strip of property on a tiny city lot for just growing grass.

The property is too valuable here and too precious.

Number three, please restrict backyard cottages to owner-occupied properties.

It's no secret that many landlords let their rentals fall into disrepair without concern for the neighborhood.

In my opinion, allowing additional units to be built on rental properties would only make this trend worse.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thanks, Paul.

John.

Nice shirt, John.

Thank you, Councilmember.

So I'm John Lombard.

I'm a candidate for City Council from District 5. I generally support the ADU legislation, but with two important amendments.

First, after much debate, I side with those who believe we should maintain the owner occupancy requirement, at least at the time of initial construction.

If we're going to experiment with dropping it, we shouldn't make the entire city subject to that experiment.

Second, if the primary reason for this legislation is to provide more affordable housing, then we should require that at least one of the up to three units that may result on a given lot be affordable to a tenant at 80% of the area median income or below.

If you don't want to make that a requirement, you could make it a tax break incentive instead.

But if you seriously doubt the feasibility of that as a requirement, then it seems to me that it undermines the fundamental argument for this legislation.

Thank you.

Colleen, you're going to be followed by Brittany Bush-Bolay, and then Rachel Ludwick.

Good afternoon.

My comments today are just about the amendments that have been proposed.

First of all, on number three, extending the backyard lot coverage to 60%.

Our community council of 2,200 people, plus including 4,000 residents, would say no.

It's too close.

There's need for gardens.

There's need for space and privacy between the lots.

On four and five amendments proposed by Councilmember Herbold, we'd say yes.

We want to prevent commercialization of these new units that would be built, and we would want to require home ownership on the lot, particularly with 12 unrelated people.

Parking for bikes, yes, thank you, Councilmember Pacheco.

And allowing open railings on the top, absolutely no.

With 12 unrelated people on a lot, these are not community, they're supposed to be backyard cottages and not something that's a big roof garden and roof party location.

And pilot program for low incomes, yes.

That's a great suggestion by Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

I am here today as chair of Sierra Club Seattle.

As you know, we have been strong supporters of increasing people's freedom and ability to construct ADUs and encourage you to pass this legislation out of committee in a form that is most conducive to this goal.

Requiring a year of ownership before construction of a second ADU is unnecessary restriction that will dampen supply.

Preventing ADU usage for short-term rentals may also restrict supply by eliminating a funding source for homeowners looking to finance new ADUs on their property.

We do support exempting bike parking from the FLORIA area calculations as this is in line both with our values and with the stated purpose of ADUs to make it easier for people to choose to walk, bike, or bus.

We believe an amnesty program for existing ADUs is a logical and equitable way to keep existing pieces of our limited and middle income housing supply safe and in use.

Sorry.

And finally, I'd like to add that we support an assertive implementation of the bike master plan, including truly protected lanes and other infrastructure accessible to all ages, languages, ethnicities, genders, races, and abilities.

Vision Zero is not a catchphrase, but a concrete goal, and we must build our bike network to ensure the safety of all users.

I apologize for cramming into this one, but I got to go after this.

Thank you.

Rachel, you're going to be followed by Janine Shingler and then Jessica Westgren.

And we've been joined by Councilmember Herbold.

Thanks for being here.

Whenever.

I'm going to limit my comments to the ADUs.

I'm actually very, my main concern is climate change.

And so I really ask that you pass the ADU legislation with a few amendments that would make it harder to build ADUs.

One I'm particularly concerned about is the issue of owner occupancy.

My family was able to build a backyard cottage.

And we had the resources to do it.

But I think a lot of families would not have the resources to do that.

They might be able to buy a house that already had a backyard cottage or two ADUs and have their family live there, have their grandparents, whatever, stay there.

But they wouldn't be able to take on the risk to build it themselves.

So it's classist to say a developer can build a McMansion in the city somewhere, but they can't build three smaller homes for three families to live in.

We're only going to be building 2,000 units over the next 10 years, even under this plan with no amendments.

So any restrictions will decrease the number of families that can live in Seattle and increase our carbon emissions.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rachel.

Janine.

Good afternoon.

Janine Shingler, and I'm a citizen of Seattle.

I want to address ADUs and the Bike Master Plan.

They're related.

They're related because of a meaningful impact to reduce human-caused climate change.

And that might be a leap for some, but when you really think about it, everything's related to human-caused climate change.

So we need to take massive action.

I am able to live in Seattle because I live in an ADU and I gave up my car after 50 years of driving.

I love that.

But now I live in a Seattle where the transportation for mass transit is actually pretty good.

But we need to do a lot more.

Every time I ride the bus, or take my tricycle out, I see thousands of cars with only one person, and I see thousands of people taking mass transit, and just think of all those cars on the road.

You know the rest of it, fill in the blank.

This is too important to sit back and say, we shoulda, woulda, coulda.

It'd be too late then.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming out, Jeanine.

Jessica, you're gonna be followed by Jesse Simpson, and then Randy Banneker.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Seattle Renters Commission today.

The Seattle Renters Commission urges the city to pass ADU reform and then go further.

There should be no owner occupancy requirement for ADUs because we should enable small mom-and-pop landlords to welcome more renters to ADUs on their property without having to move into the main house.

Renters should also legally be allowed to live anywhere that homeowners are allowed.

There should be no on-site parking requirement when building a new ADU.

There should be no requirement to own a property for a year before building a second ADU.

The city should examine how we can use ADUs to provide shelter to our homeless neighbors.

Programs like the Block Project, which enables homeowners to welcome unsheltered neighbors onto an onsite ADU, provide great examples of what's possible.

We should subsidize construction of ADUs in high displacement areas so that previously displaced renters can return to neighborhoods with their friends, family, and neighbors.

We should ensure that new landlords of ADUs are given full education of renters' rights and should offer pre-written leases that ensure adequate protections for both renters and new landlords.

We should ensure that ADUs aren't tools for Airbnb mega-hosts, and we should ensure that tenants in ADUs benefit from the same tenant protections that renters in traditional housing have.

Thank you.

You can read the full of one in your emails we sent you.

Thank you.

We squeezed a lot in there, Jessica.

Thank you.

Jesse.

Hi, I'm Jesse Simpson.

I volunteer with the Capitol Hill Renter Initiative and share the city's.

Seattle has a housing affordability crisis and a climate crisis.

Addressing this requires that we build more densely in the city, that we create more affordable housing, and that we make viable alternatives to driving.

We need to cut our carbon emissions by 50% within the next 10 years.

This requires radical action.

I urge you to pass this ADU legislation as is or with minimal amendments to encourage the maximum amount of ADUs created.

And I urge you to move quickly on the bike master plan to actually make biking around the city a safe option for people.

Just coming here, I almost got hit by a car.

And there are very few options for getting safely from First Hill to downtown.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jesse.

I've been joined by Councilmember Swant.

Randy, you're next, and you're going to be followed by Meg Wade and then Sherry Newbold.

Go ahead, Randy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Councilmembers.

Randy Banneker and here on behalf of the Seattle-King County Realtors want to thank you and applaud your work on the flexibility for ADUs and DADUs.

We think the uptake on this opportunity is going to be important.

It's going to make a a big difference in terms of housing affordability options in the city.

That said, we're concerned about the limited flexibility on redevelopment with the proposed FAR limit.

We think .5 is excessive, excessively limiting.

A 2,500 square foot house plus one foot does not a McMansion make.

And we'd urge you to reconsider that piece simply because family flexibility is important.

We're seeing families demand a larger home for a variety of reasons, including offering shelter for their extended families.

So I ask you to keep that in consideration as you tolerate further.

Thank you.

Thanks, Randy.

Meg, hold on one second.

Council Member Sawant informed me that she actually needs to run to another event.

She'll be back and wanted to say something before you took off.

So, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Chair O'Brien, for your indulgence.

I just wanted to let everybody know that I will need to step out of the meeting right now and hopefully be back later because I have to join the workers at the embassy suites who have formed a union with Unite Here Local 8 and are courageously battling a hostile management.

for their first contract, and I've been asked to support them.

And of course, I will be there as they deliver a strong message to management in a demonstration that is about to start in a few minutes.

And we will have a delegation demanding that management negotiate a fair contract with decent pay, job security, reliable hours, and respect on the job, which is especially important for the workers of color.

These workers are also, as you know, part of our fight to make Seattle affordable for all because decent living standards in the workplace is part of the equation.

And so I want to be there, but I also want to let everybody know why I wouldn't be here for a little while.

I, of course, fully support the ADU and DADU legislation.

I fully agree that we should have our strongest possible legislation.

And if I get back in time for that, of course, I will be voting for it in committee.

But if I don't, then, of course, please be assured of my support, and I will be voting for it in city council meeting.

And I really appreciate you, Council Member Bryan.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Please send our best to the workers at the hotel.

We'll do.

Thanks.

All right, Meg, you are up with that brief interlude.

Hi, my name is Meg Wade.

I'm with 350 Seattle, and I just had the joy of, I think, being surrounded by 120-some folks up on the seventh floor of City Hall today asking Mayor Durkin to join us in calling for a Green New Deal for Seattle.

Both of the pieces of legislation here today are examples of transformations that we need in our city, very supportive of the ADU and the ADU legislation.

very supportive of this committee holding SDOT accountable to the Bike Master Plan.

We need all of those things to be moving and moving faster.

We need to fund and we need to build.

I am especially concerned as far as the Bike Master Plan goes around 4th Avenue and the delay, possible delay around there, replay of what happened on 35th in terms of we had agreement, we have funding, Why is it getting pushed off?

And I would invite any of the city council members who are not yet signed on to a Green New Deal for Seattle to join us and sign on today.

Thank you.

Thanks, Meg.

You're going to be followed by Alicia Ruiz and then Alice Lockhart.

And we'll take about 10 more minutes of comment for this phase, and then we'll suspend public comment until later.

Hi.

My name's Sherry Newbold, and I volunteer with MOAR, and I also am a residential architect that's designed over 20 DADUs and ADUs, and I also have a DADU at my own home.

And I just wanted to comment specifically on flexibility for the DADUs, especially the second ones.

I think that it's important to not have any restrictions on adding second ADUs because it's going to make it quite difficult for many people to add them to their property.

And I'm more specifically concerned about amendments four and five that are proposed.

With Airbnb, I've had a number of clients come to me and say they are going to have families stay in the ADU for part of the year, but then they want to Airbnb it for the rest of the year so that they can afford to pay for it.

And I also just don't agree with there being any kind of ownership requirement.

Simply, it's going to make it more difficult for people to add them.

Thank you.

Thanks, Sherry.

Hi, I'm Alice Lockhart with 350 Seattle.

I'm here a lot.

I'm here a lot because we need, as we spoke this morning in the announcement for the Green New Deal, we need transformational change.

We don't need incremental change.

It is too late for that.

And therefore, when we work for years on gentle, climate-friendly housing.

In this, what is a piece of climate legislation, I beg council members not to vote for amendments that weaken the legislation, specifically the prior ownership amendment.

will make it more expensive to build ADUs, we may as well just put a $40,000 tax on it on that second ADU, given that cost will continue to rise during that waiting period of a year.

or possibly folks will buy property, hold on to it for a year as costs continue to rise, and then separate from the original project of building an ADU, you end up, I am so sorry, you end up with a much more expensive second ADU.

That's going to be climate unfriendly.

Please don't do it.

Sorry for the fumbling.

Alicia, and after you, Alicia, will be Bill Sampson and then David Sucher.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alicia Ruiz, and I'm here today representing the Master Builders Association.

We strongly support this legislation as building ADUs is a plus for housing, affordability, and the environment.

We support the removal of both owner occupancy and the on-site parking requirement, for this is vital to the success of this vision for our city.

For the record, our members oppose any restriction to FAR.

But with that being said, we support today's amendment excluding garages from that total.

In addition, we'd also like to voice our support for the amendment to allow for rooftop gardens and seating access.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here, Alicia.

Bill?

Hi council members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

I'm speaking today as a resident of Seattle and a Sierra Club volunteer.

I'm here to speak specifically about Abel Pacheco's amendments about bike parking, incentivizing People use bicycles instead of driving.

I don't personally bicycle, but a lot of my friends do.

And I think it's important to, as we're adding density in ADUs, to build bike infrastructure instead of car infrastructure.

People will use whatever type of infrastructure you build.

No one ever bicycles to the airport.

Most people drive, and when the light rail came in, A lot of people like to take the train to the airport instead of driving.

Thank you.

Thank you, Phil.

David?

And then David, you're going to be followed by Robert Goetsch.

And then Richard Ellison's the last person that signed up and the last person we have time for.

That worked out OK.

Hi, David Sucher.

I like Amendment 3, the increase of the rear yard lot coverage.

A gentleman spoke before about trying to modify the 5-foot setbacks.

I'm not sure if you can do that right now, but I think that's a great idea.

I think that the 5-foot setback in for a dad who's on top of a garage are just too restrictive.

I really again think in terms of the entire owner occupancy requirement, I don't even think it's constitutional.

You're just raising the flag on that one.

So if it becomes an issue, I think it's also something that you can tell people that you can't do it.

Great.

Thanks, David.

I don't believe there are any amendments to bring back owner occupancy today or in a few weeks, but we'll keep an eye out for that.

Robert.

Hi, I'm Robert Goetsch.

I'm here to talk about the ADUs and bike thing.

I'm also the co-chair of Beacon Hill Safe Streets.

And just to throw on, we did sign on to the Green New Deal, and we are participating in that after a unanimous vote of our membership base.

I support bringing more ADUs in as someone who, you know, we always talk about the values of homeownership and this and that and the other thing and rent and all the things.

One of the things I look at and wanting to do personally myself is seeing myself owning a condo or something like an ADU someday or living in one.

getting a little bit more privacy than I have in my apartment today.

But I'm also someone who doesn't want a yard, and I just would like something.

And I would like to see more of these built so that someday I could maybe have one.

I don't know about the rest of the people in the room, but for me, housing has always been difficult.

Prices are confusing.

I've always lived with people.

And I would like to see more options become available with the hopes that someday I don't have to save up for a $1.5 million starter home, and I might be able to find something cheaper.

Also, build the basic bike network.

I'm out of time.

You left your sign, Robert, but that's okay.

We'll keep the streets for the streets for people sign up on the podium.

All right, Richard.

We've been joined by Council President Harreld, too.

Thanks for being here.

Of course.

Thank you for this opportunity to try to talk to you about saving trees.

Because the last time I was here, which was just a week ago, I tried to talk about the idea of that urban island heat effect could have mortality in the city of Seattle.

And then two days later, the headlines of Seattle Times says, Seattle unprepared for deadly heat waves made worse by climate change.

And at the same time, this is supposed to be about climate activism.

You're reducing the requirement for new trees to be planted.

What an outrage.

You're going to reduce down to trees of at least one half inch caliper measured six inches from the ground.

These are tiny trees to replace big canopy trees.

This is hypocrisy.

Where's the green in the Green New Deal?

Saving trees in exchange for extra parking?

You're not doing that.

You're not doing anything to save the trees except putting in some, well, they have the option to save trees, isn't that nice?

And then you're reducing the planting requirements.

They're expecting mortality of 725 people to die per heat event in the city of Seattle.

This is what the Seattle Times said on June the 14th, 2019. In Europe in 2003, 70,000 people died in a heat wave.

In Chicago in 1995, hundreds of people died in a heat wave.

So here we are, climate justice, trying to save climate here.

And we're cutting all the big trees down, which are all about saving urban heat island effect.

And we're reducing the number of trees to be planted.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Richard.

So colleagues, with that, I'm going to close public comment.

You may have missed at the beginning, I have a separate sign-in sheet for the bike implementation plan, bike master plan implementation plan.

So we will have a second round of public comment later in the agenda.

But I will ask Kelly to read in agenda item number one, which I took somewhere and maybe didn't give back to you.

We're going to get it in a second.

But we'll invite the presenter forward.

Allie, would you like to introduce yourself before we get into the actual title of the bill?

Sure.

Allie Panucci, Council of Central Staff.

Thank you for being here.

Council Bill 119544, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending sections 2344011, 2344014, 2344017, 2344020, 2344041, 2345545, 2384A, .002, 2384A, .032, 2384A, 038, and 2386.007 of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove barriers to the creation of attached and detached accessory dwelling units and add floor area ratio requirement in certain single family zones.

Thank you so much for that.

Colleagues, briefly, this is a project we've been working on, well, some of us, for at least a few years, depending on how you count, maybe as many as four for me.

But we're getting close.

Again, my goal today is we have a number of amendments that we'll walk through, and my hope would be to get to a point where we can consider each of those amendments and then pass a bill out of committee.

I'm going to hand it over to Allie.

And Allie, I don't know that we need.

Any too much background on this?

And my colleagues just proposed that we start by just going through the amendments in the order of the central staff memo.

But Allie, if you want to say a few words, that's great.

Thank you.

So today, the committee will discuss and may vote on Council Bill 119544 that would amend the land use code to remove regulatory barriers to the creation of accessory dwelling units that I'll refer to as ADUs throughout the conversation.

If I say a DADU, I mean a detached accessory dwelling unit.

and implements a floor area ratio limit in single-family zones.

The committee has previously discussed and had briefings on the proposal at their meetings on May 7th and May 29th, and held a public hearing on May 11th.

So today, June 11th.

I'm going backwards in time.

Today, unless committee members have general questions about the proposal, I'll just walk through the amendments that are outlined on pages two through five of the central staff memo.

And there were two additional amendments that were developed after the memo that was published.

Amendments 13 and 14 copies are available for the public and I have them for committee members if they need them.

In addition, amendment one was posted separately to the agenda that's a substitute bill.

Colleagues, anyone have any concerns about just jumping into amendments?

Seeing no concerns.

Allie, take it away.

So the first amendment, as I just mentioned, is a substitute version of Council Bill 119544 that incorporates a series of technical changes and clarifications to fix typos and other drafting errors identified by central staff.

Given the number of amendments and the time between the public hearing, it is likely that there'll be additional technical corrections that will need to be incorporated at the full council, but this is what we've identified to date.

This is sponsored by Council Member O'Brien.

Colleagues, any questions on amendment number one?

I will go ahead and move amendment number one.

Second.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That passes.

And just to reiterate what I think I heard you say, Ali, is when we get to the end of this, we will probably have some other cleanup things that we'll do.

So we may be doing another version of this or a substitute version, whatever is easier when it gets to full council.

Correct.

Amendment 2 is sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien.

This would request that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections provides educational materials about becoming a landlord to property owners at the time a permit is issued for a new ADU and notifies those property owners about any upcoming trainings for new landlords that SDCI offers or that other groups may offer that SDCI is aware of.

So colleagues, this is coming to my attention from some folks that have and are considering building backyard cottages.

And they've just highlighted that they are getting into the landlord business for the first time and have some of them had some challenges navigating the host of regulations we have in the city, which is a bit of a separate body of work.

But what it flagged was this concept of, hey, every time we issue a permit for a ADU or a detached accessory dwelling unit, There's a pretty high likelihood that that person's going to be a landlord and maybe a first-time landlord.

And so we should use that list as a kind of mandatory reach out to let them know we have resources available.

Any questions on that one?

Great.

I will go ahead and move amendment number two.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

That passes.

Thank you, Allie.

Great.

Amendment 3 is also sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien and is found on page 8 of the central staff memo.

This amendment would allow increased rear yard coverage from 40% to 60% provided that the increase in additional rear yard coverage does not result in removing trees over a certain size.

The bill as proposed would allow this increased rear yard coverage for single-story ADUs.

This amendment in response to comments we've heard from property owners who have existing accessory structures in the rear yard, this would allow them to convert those structures or do additions to them and add flexibility but would continue to provide the same requirements or have the same requirements that it could only be achieved if it doesn't result in loss of trees over a certain size.

Practically speaking, in most cases, you could not have a two-story structure that covers 60% of the rear yard because there are other size and yard requirements, but it just provides more flexibility for people who are building ADUs in their backyard.

And to be clear on this one, folks, the overall lot coverage requirement still is binding, which is you cannot cover more than 35% of the lot.

There is this separate requirement in the backyard.

And depending on the configuration, and we've heard from some folks that are trying to convert a garage, that it could be a tight constraint.

And frankly, I personally think more front yard space as opposed to more backyard space is where the public can actually see it is probably more of what I would enjoy, but this seems like a, it didn't cause me any concerns to remove that requirement in the backyard.

Colleagues have any questions on that one?

Alec, can you talk about the protections that are currently in the bill for trees?

Sure, so the bill does not change any of the existing protection for trees that are already in the land use code.

So it doesn't reduce protection for trees.

What it does is it makes a clarification to requirements for new trees for single-family development, so it's a bit of a cleanup correction from the MHA legislation, but it also adds a new requirement that for single-family lots that don't currently meet the requirement for what would be expected when a new single-family home is constructed, when they're adding an ADU, they would be required to plant at least one tree.

So it, in fact, increases potentially the number of trees on a lot and doesn't And I think that is something that we need to look at as we move forward.

And as I said, change what protections are already in place.

So rules about when and where trees can be eliminated would continue.

I will add that there is an ongoing, I have an ongoing interest in our tree ordinance overall.

And Councilmember Bageshaw has And I think that's a comprehensive look at our tree code citywide and how it shows up in the single family zone is an important thing to do.

Specifically, addressing it through this legislation didn't seem like the right way to do that.

So, colleagues, I'll go ahead and move amendment number three.

Second.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

That passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amendment 4 is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

This amendment would prohibit short-term rental use in any accessory dwelling unit permitted after the effective date of this ordinance to ensure that the changes to increase accessory dwelling unit production is contributing to long-term housing needs to address the need for more housing in Seattle.

Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

So this amendment is designed to make sure that this legislation is really focused on the goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing.

We're in a affordable housing crisis and I think we really need to be focused on making sure that the units that we are making possible to be built that aren't currently possible to build are used for long-term rentals.

When we debated the policy around short-term rentals a couple years ago, Puget Sound SAGE took a strong position and was really leading the way and leading the policy development through some analysis that they had done.

about the proliferation of short-term rentals in housing that would otherwise be rental housing.

Harkening back to the analysis that they did then, they have weighed in on this legislation as well in support of my amendment.

And they identify the fact that The impacts of allowing STR activity and ADUs will primarily benefit people who own homes.

And households of color benefit less than white households from renting out their homes because homeownership rates, as we know, are not equivalent across race.

So you couple that with the research that they did in 2016 about the growth of ADUs and where that growth is occurring.

You can see that there is a very sharp rate of growth of ADU activity in neighborhoods that our OPCD analysis have identified as neighborhoods at high risk of displacement.

So you can see Delridge, Rainier Valley, Beacon Hill, Bitter Lake, and Northgate.

are all neighborhoods that we have identified as neighborhoods at high risk of displacement, but also are seeing the growth of ADU activity.

So whereas our, I think our legislation...

Is this ADU activity or Airbnb activity?

I'm sorry, short-term rental activity.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yeah.

Acronyms.

And so whereas our legislation regulating short-term rentals, really helps address the conversion of some of these units.

I think that if we are really going to be focused on making sure that we are addressing displacement impacts of policy that we pass here in our city, we should make sure that policies like the ones that we have before us are not actually adding to those displacement impacts.

So I know there's been some suggestion that we should deal with this issue outside of the bill and maybe reopen the short-term rental legislation.

But the short-term rental legislation I think was really focused on stemming the conversion of existing housing to short-term rentals.

This legislation is about new housing that we're building and I think it's entirely appropriate that we address this really critical issue within this bill.

So I hope we can do that.

Councilor Hurrell, thank you for this amendment and thank you for sharing the information from the past.

I share your concern about prioritizing this not necessarily new but hopefully more robust housing type that will be created as a result of this legislation.

to keep that focused on being long-term housing.

I don't support this amendment at this time, however, because I think this should be taken up as a more comprehensive piece of short-term rental legislation.

When we passed the short-term rental legislation at the time a few years ago, I didn't think it went far enough.

I personally would like to see more restrictions on it.

The advocates at the time said that the largest challenge they're facing was people considered doing multiple units.

Right now, our legislation, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Allie, allows people to rent out their primary residence plus one additional unit.

And one of the concerns I have around this is if a homeowner wants to build a backyard cottage, they couldn't use that, if this were to pass, they couldn't use that as a short-term rental, but they could buy a single-family home next door, and they could use that as a short-term rental.

I would be much more interested in keeping that single-family home as a long-term rental.

They may choose to build a backyard cottage on their lot, or they may not.

And if this prevents them from building it, we're just a unit short that may not have been used for long-term rental.

But the single-family home next door, if someone was going to buy that to use as a short-term rental, and they choose not to, that housing unit is available for someone else as opposed to not even get built.

The complexity around this, there is some complexity and nuance, and I appreciate, even in Sage's letter, they talk about the desire to have low-income homeowners have access to building ADUs.

And I think that there's an open question that I would want to have more discussion with the public on before we move forward on supporting this amendment about who is most impacted by the short-term rental restriction.

I've heard from folks in the community who say, I would like to rent out an ADU for nine months of the year to someone in college or grad school, and then for the three months in the summer be able to short-term rental it.

And I don't know where I stand on that.

I mean, that's mostly a long-term rental.

And if they get a little extra income over the summer because of that, and that helps them build it, are we better off or not?

I would love to see someone like Sage or other folks do some analysis of who might be impacted by that.

So at the moment for me, I absolutely support the intent.

I know the mayor has sent us, shares the concern.

In fact, I think she probably supports your amendment.

My suggestion, my alternative suggestion would be to ask the mayor or others to work on potentially opening up the short-term rental legislation again.

with a proposal if we think our existing legislation is too permissive, allowing a primary resident plus one additional unit, that we do that comprehensively.

This land use code, if it follows my timeline, will go into effect sometime late July or early August.

And any units that would be produced under this would still be at least a year away because of our permitting and construction realities.

And so I do think we have a window of time to dive into that before the year's over.

But it won't give you the opportunity to vote on this important policy that will help stem the speculative activities of developers in low-income communities of color that are already faced with a lot of displacement impacts.

I would just again say that The short-term rental legislation was about the conversion of existing housing that could be rental housing to short-term rental.

It's about stemming that.

This is a bill that is about building new housing.

And so I think it's a completely different policy decision that we're making here today, but still a policy decision that has the likelihood of exacerbating patterns of displacement that we're already seeing in our communities.

I totally agree with that.

I think the short-term rental legislation we passed also prevented people from buying brand new townhomes and using those as short-term rentals.

So it also had a significant impact, or buying condos as they come online.

But new stuff that got built also couldn't be turned into short-term rentals, and I think that is appropriate, except for one per person.

So, and I would also hope that we could handle some short-term rental before the end of the year legislation.

So, Council Member Pacheco.

Ali, can you describe just real quickly how a current homeowner would be impacted wanting to build an ADU by the short-term regulations, the short-term rental regulations?

So the existing regulations for related to short-term rentals as Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Herbold have noted is you can operate your own home plus one additional unit and that additional unit could either be an accessory dwelling unit on your lot or a unit anywhere else.

in Seattle.

So as the bill is proposed, a homeowner could add two ADUs to the lot.

Under no circumstance could they offer all three of those units, the main house plus the two ADUs, a short-term rental.

They could offer their own home plus one of the ADUs.

The third ADU would have to be used for long-term rental or vacant or however the homeowner wished for anything that's not short-term rental use and is allowed in a single-family zone.

In terms of the homeowners, what we have heard is to some extent that homeowners are looking for some flexibility in how they use their property and how they gain income.

However, they would still be permitted with this legislation to offer any ADU that was built prior to implementation as a short-term rental as well as their own home.

So it's not entirely, I would say, clear how it will impact the choices homeowners are making.

But I think I mentioned in a previous presentation what we learned from the survey of property owners in Portland is that flexibility was important.

So I think it's a bit of a balancing of providing that flexibility, but also thinking about the long-term housing stock.

So I'll leave that hard decision for all of you.

I think that is a good point.

Thank you.

Let's turn to Council President Harrell.

Generally agreeing with Councilmember Herbold that the thrust of this legislation is for long-term I guess I make a fundamental difference between a detached unit, a DADU, if you will, that will require more financing, more permit processing, etc., more costs, as opposed to someone that is struggling to stay in their home and maybe they renovate a basement, if you will.

to get some short-term rental in in order to stay in their home.

So your proposal seems to prohibit all of that, and I was trying to sort of get to the ground where The dados, yes, I think we should keep that for long-term housing, but the attached, the ones with lower cost, as a means to keep people in their homes, I would think we'd want some more flexibility there.

And if it's on a short-term rental basis, so be it, because we're trying to keep people in their existing houses as much as possible.

Consider that a friendly amendment.

I'm friendly.

So that would essentially be changing the amendment to say it's prohibited any attached Excuse me detached accessory dwelling unit Permitted after the effective date of the order the council bill introduces I think it's a that's where I'm trying to get and I you know I'm thinking about what we're doing for those folks that are really on the on the margin fixed income and

The Airbnb model now has come into effect and it may help them subsidize their existing market.

So I was just gonna say I kind of I appreciate Councilmember Herbold's amendment but I kind of err on the side of supporting Councilmember O'Brien on this one.

More so because of the reason that I think it requires, given that to build an ADU, it's relatively a large expense, and given homeowners the flexibility to finance the ADU or DADU, I think is important.

You know, given my district, half the district is a student population, and that student population, I think, you know, when they're not in quarter, not in session, or the children's hospital, I think about how that, Could it potentially impact them if they're doing a residency and they're not there for the full year?

Does the homeowner then not have the capacity to then be able to pursue a short-term rental to finance it?

So that's where I kind of side.

That's why I sided with Council Member O'Brien.

But I appreciate Council Member Herbold's amendment.

Council Member Herbold, how would you like to proceed at this point?

Did you hear what I whispered to her?

I said, I will make an amendment and then we'll see where the votes fall.

And then, so I'll move to amend.

I'm going to slaughter this, Ali, so bear with me.

I'll move to amend her amendment to a minute such that we restrict DADUs, but allow ADUs the flexibility of short term rentals.

So just to be clear on what you all will be considering, it's on page 10 of the central staff memo.

At the bottom of the page in section B, it would read, a short-term rental use may be located in a principal dwelling unit.

A short-term rental use is prohibited in a detached accessory dwelling unit permitted after the effective date of the ordinance introduces Council Bill 119544. And if I could go back for a moment, it should actually read, a short-term rental use may be located in a principal dwelling unit or an attached accessory dwelling unit and would be prohibited in a detached.

So again, that might be language I clarify in a cleanup bill, but that would essentially be the gist.

So it would prohibit it in detached accessory dwelling units.

It would allow it in attached accessory dwelling units.

So is there a motion to amend the amendment?

Second.

And it's been seconded.

So we have.

the amendment to the amendment first.

So I believe we need to vote on that.

I will support the amendment to the amendment, even though I will not support the actual amendment in a moment, but let's get this cleaner version forward.

So all in favor of supporting the amendment to the amendment, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay, so that's everybody.

So now there's a revised amendment before us.

Just to reiterate one more time, this would prevent short-term rental use after the effective date of the bill in backyard cottages and detached accessory dwelling units only.

Do you want to say anything more to that at the moment?

Just purely that I appreciate Council President Harrell's amendment to my amendment.

It still fulfills the purpose of my intention in the amendment and really helps us make sure that this new policy does not further add fire or fuel to the fire of speculative activities that specifically and most starkly impact communities of people in high displacement risk areas.

So all in favor of the amended amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, signify by saying no.

No.

Okay, so that one fails on a 2-2 vote.

So a couple options going forward.

You all know this, but for the public, this amendment could come back in this form or a slightly different form at full council.

So this amendment would have required introduction of a new bill because it would amend the title of the bill.

So it's going to be kind of messy to bring it back.

You could, of course, vote down the overall legislation at full council and defer it and delay it.

I'm not suggesting we do that.

What I would like to propose in lieu of that, and happy to work with you all offline if there's support to do something different, but to put some language in the bill, probably in a recital to request that the executive consider bringing short-term rental legislation to us that is a little more comprehensive.

I don't have capacity in the sustainability and transportation committee to do it before the end of the year.

It would almost certainly be your committee, Council Member Pacheco, so I'm not sure exactly how that may play out.

I would actually be interested in taking up the short-term rental legislation between now and the end of the year, but I don't know how much capacity there is.

Council President Harrell?

Just so I understand your objection, and this is really a friendly discussion, because it sounds like you agreed in principle, and you and Council Member Pacheco agreed in principle that we are trying to achieve long-term housing.

We recognize the beauty of short-term rentals and want to give people flexibility.

You agree that in this legislation, what's driving our policies are long-term housing, but your preference is to hold off on making substantive changes until we take up There's two things.

Yeah, there's two things for me.

One is that we're going to restrict it in backyard cottages, but not other single family homes or condos.

And so I don't think that's necessarily fair.

I understand that folks say, well, we'll move it in that direction.

That's fair, too.

The other thing is I think the complexity around this and backyard cottages, I would like to better understand.

So I do hear from people that say, my goal is to build one of these.

I'm going to short-term rental.

I'm not, it's not clear to me that short-term rentals actually make more money than long-term rentals in our current housing market.

A couple years ago I think they did, but I'm not sure they do anymore.

But they may want to do that for a couple years to help pay back their construction loan.

But then they want to have it be ready for, you know, their mother-in-law to move in or for a longer-term rental.

As Council Member Pacheco talked about, you know, what about, you know, university housing or long-term housing where you have gaps in between.

And so I'd love to hear some more analysis around that.

And I could be convinced in that process that we should do what you both are suggesting right now.

I'm just not quite there right now.

Okay.

Just to be clear, I do think it's worthy to discuss, because collectively I think we're trying to pursue the same objective, which is more long-term housing for folks.

It's just I don't think that this is the appropriate bill to address it.

I think it's better for us to...

I have all the information I need at this point to make a strong policy decision, so I didn't need to kick it down the road at all.

I know I should have invited one more colleague to the table, by the way.

Let people know we're transparent when we make these decisions.

And for the public, just so they understood my question about what could happen to full counsel, this piece of legislation does not include the title, the section of the code that addresses it, and so we would need a new bill introduced.

And that new bill being introduced, we can't vote on it the same day we introduce it.

So if the majority of the council felt strongly that this should not go forward without that, there would be a path to do that.

It would take a number of weeks, not years, thankfully.

But at this point, my proposal is we move forward with this legislation and see where folks go.

Did you want to say anything else to that, Nellie?

No, you covered it.

All right, colleagues, if it's OK, I'm going to suggest we move on to amendment number five.

Okay, Amendment 5, also sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

This amendment would modify the existing, the requirement in the proposed bill that would require that when adding a second accessory dwelling unit, that the new accessory dwelling unit either meets a green building requirement or is an affordable unit, rent and income restricted unit.

This would add a one-year ownership requirement of the property in addition to the green building requirement prior to adding a second ADU.

It wouldn't modify the option of an affordable unit.

So a property owner who is adding a second ADU would be able to choose either, provided that they've owned the property for one year prior to getting the permit, they would either meet a green building requirement or offer that unit as affordable unit.

So, again, if they choose the affordability path, there is no one-year delay.

Correct.

Okay.

Council Member Herbold, why don't you speak to this one?

So, yes, no one-year delay if the second unit is developed as a rent-restricted affordable unit.

Just to clarify, again, this is not an owner occupancy requirement.

This is an ownership requirement.

And this ownership requirement would not be triggered by people who currently own their property and want to develop to it to ADUs.

This is only for, this would only kick in for people who are purchasing property and then immediately or within a year wanting to build to ADUs.

Again, the intent is to stem the speculative impact of basically allowing more development on property that then has the potential of removing 20% of our single family homes right now are occupied by renters.

So we don't want this new policy to add to the flipping of rental housing that is currently affordable to folks.

And so that's what this amendment is designed to do, to minimize the likelihood that people are going to purchase property that is currently affordable and then immediately flip it, develop two ADUs that are not affordable.

I like this and I support it.

The reason being, again, is it's all about There are some fairly smart people out there that will speculate and displace.

I mean, it's as simple as that for me.

And I think as a policy, while they're free to do that, it's a free market, if there are policies designed to achieve, again, the goal of having affordable housing, affordable living spaces for people, this policy makes sense.

And that is our ultimate goal.

And so I think for these reasons, it's not an unreasonable restriction.

It's reasonable and consistent with our policy goals.

So I certainly support it.

This is one I've thought about a fair amount.

In fact, if you track my history over four years of working on this legislation, I have at various points proposed one-year owner occupancy requirement and one-year ownership requirements.

But at the moment, I don't.

And a lot of this is informed by the data in the EIS, which indicates that the speculative pressure on single-family zoning house purchases by allowing more flexibility in accessory dwelling units or detached accessory dwelling units, there doesn't seem to be evidence that that will drive up speculation in today's current market.

That's my read of that.

Obviously, the markets do and can change, and that could change in time.

The thing that really drives me is a deeper commitment than when I started I want to see more units in our single-family zones.

I think attached and detached accessory dwelling units are a great way to allow more housing opportunities in single-family zones.

And what we've seen over the past few decades is actually the number of people living in our single-family zones has actually decreased as household sizes get smaller.

And so I don't know that we're going to go back to larger household sizes, but I do think having more units on a single-family zone allows us to at least maintain the number of people that are living in single-family zones, which I think is a positive.

So following that, I want to make it as easy as possible for folks who choose to add a attached or a one or two ADUs.

And if someone buys a home in the single family zone and wants to add two ADUs at the same time, but now they can only add one and then have to wait a year till the second one, that becomes problematic for me.

And I don't think that that serves the goal that I would like to achieve.

Anything that can make it easier to add a second ADU for me is something that I'm strongly supportive of.

And so I'm interested in watching how speculation plays out, and obviously we can come back and refine this in the future, we probably not being me at this point.

But the evidence that I've seen to date is that there aren't people, the ADUs are not driving the speculative housing market in any way that I can see in the evidence.

So I wrestle with this one.

I wrestle with this one because having lived in two ADUs where the homeowner was on site, I think there was the incentive of affordability because they were more concerned about having a good tenant.

However, we know that we need more housing.

And on this, I side with Council Member O'Brien in trying to remove the barriers for individuals to build more housing.

Because I think it's to our collective agenda of trying to build more housing within our city.

And so for that reason, I'm going to vote against this amendment, but I would, be open to pursuing the conversation further at a later point, either through the Land Use Committee or to work with you and Council President Harrell to hopefully kind of, that can address the speculative nature of what I think you're trying to do with not specific to this amendment.

So.

Okay.

Colleagues, any further comments on this one?

Again, you know, I guess we just Again, disagree.

I mean, I think what we heard repeatedly in many communities is people want the ability to age in place.

And this, I think Councilman Herbold's amendment sort of supports this concept of aging in place.

And I think we're being somewhat naive if we don't think there are speculators out there that will look at this legislation and just see the opportunity to flip.

I just think we're being naive about that.

But again, we're going in uncharted territories.

I understand that.

But again, and I think the executive supports what we're trying to do here as well, based on all of the round tables and discussions they've had about people wanting to age in place.

And so I thought this was a reasonable restriction.

That's why I support my colleague, Council Member Herbold.

OK.

I think that is a good point.

Thank you.

what she would like to see.

So I think part of that is if we would like to table this amendment or table the discussion further with these amendments so that we can have more time to discuss them further, I'm open to that.

But I think that there's a challenge when we've only been given an hour prior to our committee meeting to have this discussion openly.

The mayor's office weighed in more recently, but it's been posted.

So this one doesn't suffer from the same challenges of the previous amendment.

So we can vote on this amendment today.

If Councilmember Herbold wants to vote on this today, and it could come back to full council too, or if you want to table it, you can go either way.

It doesn't, neither, none, it's the other way.

I'd be happy to table it until full council.

This one does not require a title change.

Correct.

So you can, you could do both.

You could take it up now, you could table it, but it still could come back to full council.

Our rules don't prohibit us from voting in committee and voting again at the full council.

So preference to table at the moment?

What do you think?

Well, I just didn't get a record.

Why don't we go ahead and vote on it?

We'll do a two-two or an abstain if you want.

Let's make and get the record going.

All right.

Sounds good.

Okay.

So all in favor of supporting amendment number five, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

And oppose, see if I'm saying no.

No.

OK, so there's two in favor, two opposed.

So that fails.

And again, we may see this or some version of it back at full council.

Councilmember Pacheco, did you want to bring amendment number six, or do you want to talk about that, or what's...

No, I just want to defer to the full council.

Okay.

So we're gonna pass on amendment number six for now, and Councilmember Pacheco's gonna, I believe, have some more conversation with some community members and bring this or some version of something perhaps back to full council.

Great.

Agenda or amendment number seven.

Councilmember Pacheco, I'll have Ali speak to that, and then you can weigh in.

Great.

Amendment number seven would request development of an amnesty program for existing unpermitted ADUs.

Since 1994 and 2021, attached and detached ADUs, respectively, have been allowed citywide as part of the main house or in the backyards.

ADUs that may have been constructed before or after that time without a permit for a variety of reasons may exist but are not currently counted in the city's numbers.

and not included in the city's rental registration and inspection ordinance.

This amendment requests that SDCI undertakes an amnesty program for accessory dwelling units that were constructed without permits.

The intent here is to increase the city stock of legal and affordable housing that is both safe and habitable.

One of the challenges sometimes with people who have either built themselves or have purchased a home with an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit is that it was constructed long before the current building codes and electrical codes.

So this would be requesting the SDCI take a look at all of the requirements that a homeowner would be required to meet to get that unit up and legally permitted as an ADU and try to provide flexibility where appropriate while ensuring that that unit still meets basic health and safety standards.

Council Member Chico.

So just from what we heard in public hearing, as well as what I've heard in the district, we know that there are folks in the city who own houses that have ADUs in them, and they were often built or converted before we legalized ADUs, or don't conform exactly with all of our requirements.

And so this amendment would recognize that those units do exist, and that we would allow them to come out of the shadows.

by creating a process that allow these ADUs to continually operate legally.

We both preserve those needed affordable units of housing, and we encourage them to come in compliance with our safety and health standards.

So, this amendment only asks SDCI to do this work, but it does not necessarily change the policy itself.

Excellent.

I am supportive of it.

Just a question.

I like it.

Thanks, Councilmember Chico, for thinking of the concept or wherever it originated.

So this just when does this take effect for everyone that built one before we pass the legislation or years before?

So the Amendment doesn't actually just ask them to develop a firm and they would set it typically other cities that have developed these types of programs have set it sort of prior to the effective date of the of the new rules of pick a point in in time, but generally Because we need to look at what authority we have to provide flexibility to certain building codes.

It's not something

So it's just general direction to develop an amnesty program is fine.

It would be nice for just to see before it's so we're just deferring it to like a rulemaking process if you will but I always get a little nervous sometimes when we don't see until it's out and then we hear about all the problems but that's fine.

I won't be on the council when it's developed anyway so.

Might it have to come back to council, depending on what they chose?

It may.

It depends on what they determine is possible.

It may require legislative changes to provide flexibility for those that are unpermitted.

So I think it's an open question still.

I like it.

OK.

All in favor of, sorry, were we on Amendment 7?

Yes.

All in favor of Amendment Number 7, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Great.

That amendment passes.

Amendment 8 is an amendment proposed by Councilmember Mosqueda, who couldn't be here today, that would allow open railings to extend up to 4 feet above the base height limit on DADUs to accommodate roof decks.

Great.

So I am going to channel Councilmember Mosqueda.

I support this amendment.

This is in the spirit of providing a little more flexibility.

I want to be clear that I'm not exactly sure how often these will be used.

There are still pretty strict height restrictions on backyard cottages.

And the idea that you could fit, it's hard for me to imagine how you could fit two stories in a backyard cottage and then have a roof deck on top of it.

The way this, I imagine, would play out would be if someone did a one-story ADU with a flat roof, or if someone did a two-story with a pitched roof but had essentially like a little dormer with a railing on it, that railing wouldn't violate the height code, which that to me is probably where I think it might play out relatively small.

But regardless, I'm certainly open to the idea that if people can find more usable space and be creative, that seems fine.

And I believe we exempt railing in most of the other parts of the code, single family, low rise, those types of things too.

So this would be more consistent with that.

Colleagues, any, I don't want to,

I just wanted to make sure I understand it here.

So we're really in the weeds on this one here.

So the open or open railing on, what's an open railing?

First of all, let me start with that.

So it's not like a solid wall.

It's open so it doesn't create as much of a visual barrier.

but it still provides safety so you don't fall off the deck.

So the term, that wasn't the right question.

The term open railing, that's a defined term?

So there's no ambiguity in what the heck an open railing is?

Because that scares me having grandchildren about open railings.

Yeah, and it is, it's used frequently in the land use code.

So it's a, it's the typical language that is used for related to roof techs.

Is it a defined term?

My concern is whether it's a defined term and whether We have liability, we have open railings on roof decks.

And we're saying this is a good thing to have.

I will have to confirm whether or not it is specifically defined in the land use code.

But if it is not, I can get you information about how this is implemented from SDCI.

It's the language that's used in other zones to accommodate roof deck.

The concept doesn't bother me at all.

It's just a little discomfort and really annoying.

why we as non-engineering and non-roofers are sort of talking about these open railings on roof decks.

And so my understanding, I hear, I think I hear you, about a safety concern.

And I'm assuming that the building code has pretty strict regulations about the spacing between openings on anything, you know, a deck above whatever, 36 inches, has to have a railing and there's requirements about the spacing on that.

so people don't fall off it, including little ones.

And none of this would change any of those building code requirements.

This would simply say that if you want to build a railing that would go above a certain height of the overall structure, that that would be allowed as long as it's an open railing.

Yeah, so I will follow up with additional information about exactly what this means.

And if you're not comfortable, modifications could be made at full council if you want more details in the amendment.

I'm going to ask the obvious.

I assume it's prohibited without this amendment?

That is correct.

So there are very specific items that can extend above the base height limit that are listed in the code.

And open railings is not currently one of them.

Things like chimneys and flagpoles.

I mean, the land use code gets very much in the weeds.

And if it's not listed, it can't extend.

Colleagues.

Council President, I think your concerns are, I don't know the answers either, and I think those are really legitimate concerns too, but I'm gonna go ahead and support it unless I hear otherwise.

Council Member Chico?

So, Ali, just to clarify, so other parts of this legislation are consistent with allowing roof decks, so this policy change would be consistent with what we always, what we already do in allowing roof decks?

Currently a roof deck wouldn't be allowed on a detached accessory dwelling unit because there isn't an allowance for railings to extend above the height limit.

So I guess in theoretically if it's possible that it may be permitted if they built a shorter D.A.D.U. and the railing was below the base height.

But in general, this amendment is consistent with what we allow on other housing types in single family zones and other zones.

That's a good point.

My single story example probably is probably irrelevant because the railing would most likely fit within the height.

Yeah, I think the other way this could work is if you have an existing single story flat roof garage and you do an addition of a two story ADU adjacent to that, the top of the, well, that would still be a single story, but it may extend above the roof, the height limits.

If the garage is 12 feet tall, you know, would need to be above, in some lots, the base height limit is 14 feet, so it couldn't extend, you couldn't have a four-foot railing.

Okay.

Council Member Herbold.

So just to clarify for myself, and you may have said this, but it helps me to say it myself out loud.

Generally speaking, not specific to daddoos, but generally speaking, rooftop decks allow open railings.

What we are trying to do with this amendment is making sure that the height of the open railings that are already permitted on generally on rooftop decks do not count against the height limits for ADUs.

Correct.

I'm comfortable with that.

All in favor of amendment number Sorry.

Eight.

Eight.

Signified by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstaining?

Abstain.

One abstaining.

That amendment passes.

Thank you all for that discussion.

Council Member Herbold, Ali, would you read amendment number nine?

So Amendment 9 sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

This relates to a pilot program that the Office of Housing at the direction of Council is implementing that would expand the existing home repair loan program to include loans to low-income homeowners who want to create additional habitable space on their property to house a low-income family or community member.

This could include in finishing a basement, creating an accessory dwelling unit, or bringing an existing unregistered ADU up to code.

This amendment requests that OH reports to the council on lessons learned from that pilot program and makes recommendations for opportunities to expand that program or develop a new program to offer financial support for the development of rent and income restricted units to all property owners.

So it would be focused more specifically on expanding the program more broadly to increase the supply of income and rent restricted units.

I would like to recognize that the reason why we have this pilot is because Councilmember O'Brien asked the office of housing to create this pilot for levy dollars.

We recently had discussions of the ANF plan, the administrative financing plan for levy dollars.

This pilot was one of the topics.

We were looking at whether or not there were ways that we could enhance the pilot and link it to the option of providing a second DADU and have that DADU be affordable.

We're unable to do it this round and so I'm just, again, this legislation isn't simply about, for me, creating new units for the sake of creating new units.

It's about creating affordability and just adding more units does not add affordability.

in itself.

And so to the extent that we can create additional rent-restricted units using this pilot, I'm excited about doing that.

Great.

I fully support it, too.

Any other questions or comments on that, colleagues?

All right.

All in favor of Amendment Number 9, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right, that passes.

Amendment 10, Allie.

Amendment 10 is sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien.

This would request that SDCI prepares a report on short-term rental use and ADUs and working with the FAS office.

It would In reference to the previous discussion on short-term rentals, it would provide information about how many short-term rental operators are getting a license to operate short-term rentals in accessory dwelling units.

Specifically, we currently have pretty basic information about short-term rental activity and can't parse out what's in an ADU or in other types of units.

So this would provide more detailed information about that and inform future policy discussions.

I don't have anything to add to that.

Are there any questions on that one?

Okay, all in favor of supporting amendment number 10, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay, that passes.

Amendment 11.

Amendment 11, sponsored by Councilmember Pacheco.

The council bill as introduced includes a request for a series of reporting, some of which has been amended by the actions today.

In addition, it asks OPCD and SDCI to work together to conduct a survey of ADU occupants and owners three years after implementation.

This would add specificity to that survey request to ask questions about the demographics of ADU owners and occupants and the rents charged for ADU tenants in the ADU survey.

And it's important to note here that this would be voluntary information.

People would not be required to disclose that if they chose not to, but it would provide more detailed information about what types of rents are being charged and who is benefiting from the accessory dwelling unit legislation.

Great.

Council Member Pacheco?

I just offer this amendment just because I think it's important for us to think.

These are, this is important information for a future council to have with regards to making any changes that may be, that they may want to consider.

And so I thought this would be helpful information for future council.

I support it.

I appreciate you bringing it forward.

Hopefully, I know a lot of this will be voluntary, but hopefully we'll get some robust data that will be helpful going forward.

Colleagues, any questions or comments on that?

All in favor of supporting amendment number 11, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

That one passes also.

Ali, I believe there's a couple other amendments that folks are planning to bring.

If you know what they are, you can jump right in.

And if there's some question we can ask.

Great.

So the next two amendments there, I'm skipping the number 12 and going to amendment 13 and 14. I have copies if anyone at the table needs a copy of the amendment.

This is amendment Amendment 13, along the same lines as the previous amendment, Council President Harrell is proposing an addition to the reporting request to collect information about the number of ADU permits that included off-street parking in their proposal, even though they would not be required to provide an off-street parking.

and to include information about any parking impacts that have been identified by the city and recommendations on if the council should consider modifications to the off-street parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.

Great.

Council President Harrell.

Just a quick description that I support the waiver of the parking requirements for both one and two.

I actually was coming up with another amendment where on the second one I was a little concerned about whether we automatically waive them.

I understand the concept of trying to get people off of fossil fuels and encouraging transit and trying to make it as the process as smooth as possible for people to actually construct autos and dados.

In areas where there's just incredibly parking problems and particularly where cars are getting smaller and perhaps more environmentally sustainable as we build for the future, I just think we need to study the impacts and come back and make sure we made the right decisions and ask the department to help us along with that to see if there's any unintended consequences by waiving the parking requirements.

And so this will force them to sort of look at that and then provide the council and the executive with some guidance.

I think it's good policy.

Great.

Council President Harrell, I appreciate this approach.

I'll see if my colleagues have any other comments or questions on this.

I assume that's a no.

So...

colleagues, anyone in favor of amendment number 13, please signify by saying, aye.

Aye.

Okay, we got five yeses on that.

Council President Harreld, anything else you want to squeeze through right now?

You got a couple of minutes.

Let's go back and revisit Councilman Harreld.

I might be hopping right behind you, actually.

Okay, I believe there's an amendment 14 also?

Correct.

Amendment 14. Proposed by Councilmember Pacheco would add it to the exempt to floor area that is exempt from the proposed floor area ratio limit.

So this amendment would add an option of exempting either 500 square feet in an accessory structure that is not a detached accessory dwelling unit.

So currently the proposal would Apply an FAR limit to single-family lots.

Certain floor area would be exempt.

This includes any floor area in an accessory dwelling unit, any floor area below grade, and up to 500 additional square feet that is in any other accessory dwelling unit, which would typically be a detached garage.

This would add the option of either the 500 additional square feet or up to 250 square feet of floor area included in an attached garage.

Councilmember Pacheco.

I just believe that this is a good change for consistency's sake, but also that we're not inadvertently incentivizing the development of detached garages.

Incentivizing detached garages could also incentivize longer driveways that are needed for much-needed backyard garages, or sorry, cottages, which then leads to a lot more being paved over.

So that's the reason I proposed this amendment, and so I'm hoping to be able to incentivize more attached garages than detached garages.

And if I could just add to Council Member Chico's point, this is really, in terms of the long driveway, lots that have alley access would typically build a detached garage and would likely choose that option.

Single family lots in the city that don't have alley access would have a driveway coming off of the street.

And if there isn't any exception for floor area in an attached garage, it may lead them to build a longer driveway to have a detached in the back of the lot where otherwise they may build an attach with a shorter driveway that's part of the main house.

Councilwoman Pateko, I support your amendment.

I appreciate your thoughtful approach on this.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments on Amendment 14?

Seeing none, all in favor of supporting Amendment 14, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right, that amendment passes.

Okay.

Colleagues, we have considered, I'm going to give you a 20-minute history of the last four years on this.

No, I'm just kidding.

I should acknowledge that we've been rejoined by Council Member Sawant.

Thank you for coming back.

We have a piece of legislation as amended in front of us right now.

I guess I'll open the floor to any further discussion if folks want to comment on anything.

But I'm ready to move on to a final vote on this out of committee and move on to other agenda items.

Colleagues, any comments here?

point that I think is pertinent to the overall legislation.

You know, to the folks who have been really concerned about the number of DADUs, ADUs, one of the things that came up in the public hearing was My request to central staff to sort of translate the number of units to acres that exist, single family zoned acres in the city.

And so the EIS predicts about 4,400 ADUs to be built over 10 years.

So that's about 440 ADUs over the entire city over 10 years.

440 per year.

Per year.

Yeah.

Yeah.

For 10 years.

Over a 10-year period.

And that works out to be about 1 ADU per 80 acres.

And for folks who don't immediately have a sense of what an acre is, as city blocks differ in size, but a typical city block is about 4 acres.

four square acres so that works out to be every year I'm 40 40 40 I'm going back and forth between my 10-year number and my yearly number but that's 180 you approximately per 40 acres in the city per year.

So I think that helps me and hopefully other folks get a sense, a real sense of the scale of development that we're going to be seeing in single family zones as a result of these important changes to this policy.

For someone like myself who would hope to see lots of these, it's a little underwhelming.

I spent four years on this.

That was not my intent.

I know, I know.

I want to respect that.

My hope is that we see more than that.

There's certainly, I believe, a bit of a backlog right now because people have been anxiously awaiting for this legislation to pass.

And I also think to the point that this is unlikely to radically reshape our single family zone in any kind of meaningful way.

I think that may have been your point.

I agree with that and appreciate you making that.

Conversations about that will have to be in another set of deliberations.

Colleagues, any other comments?

You know, I may not be here for the full vote, depending on when we, I guess I'll decide when it goes on the full docket, but I have a, I think you're looking at the?

July 1st.

July 1st might be the one Monday I'll miss this year, possibly.

So I'll just say a few words.

Thank you for your work on this.

You've been steadfast.

And for me, it's a very simple scheme when people are thinking how it could adversely affect the city.

I just see it a rich opportunity to Just simply allow more people to live here, people that are on lower income, fixed income.

Keeping people and their livelihood within the city, that's a good thing.

It's good for businesses, it's good for neighborhoods, it's good for public safety, it's just good policy.

And so we're trying to get there through these types of I'll say tweaks in our land use system, in our codes, but I think it's a real good policy one that I support.

So thank you for your leadership if I'm not there to say that publicly.

I appreciate that, Council President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair O'Brien.

Thank you for letting me leave and come back, and I convey the best wishes of everybody to the Unite Here workers at Embassy Suites.

I wanted to thank you, Council Member O'Brien, and many community members, including the ones who are here and the community organizations that have fought so long and hard to make this legislation possible.

It is the right thing to do, and I, of course, will be voting yes on it in committee and in city council meeting.

I also wanted to echo some of the points that the sustainability and transportation committee had gone over the last time council members O'Brien and Herbold and I were discussing how in addition like on top of building this legislation we also need to look for concrete avenues to enable working class and middle class homeowners to be able to actually avail of this ordinance in so that they can actually have the starting capital to build backyard cottages.

And that is, we know through the research from Sightline Institute and other organizations, that that is a significant barrier that still remains to be crossed.

And I hope that we will also move the conversation to that in the future.

And I also wanted to give a shout out to God Green, who I think today announced their Green New Deal plan, 350 Seattle as well.

Thank you so much for doing that.

And hopefully that's the direction we're moving forward in.

Any comments?

Just want to thank you, Council Member O'Brien, for your leadership on this.

Quite frankly, I'm honored to be part of this conversation in the seven months that I'll be on this council.

Just because I haven't lived in 280 years, I know how great of an opportunity it is to be able to provide for folks who, not just in my district, but throughout the city.

One of the things, and I know that this conversation gets very siloed in binary terms, but as you know, when we grapple with decisions or when we're told of the challenges, the growth challenges of this region of 1.2 million new jobs and 1.8 million new residents, we know that this is a drop in the bucket.

But the changes that are going to go through this region, it really speaks to the heart of why we need to add more density throughout our city as well as Just around our region.

So thank you.

Thank you Colleagues, I really appreciate your ongoing patience with me and work on this.

I appreciate the folks getting a number of amendments lined up.

Obviously, we might still get a few at full council.

We'll see what happens.

But I appreciate all the work to get to where we are to date.

Really quickly, in case I forget in two weeks, I want to thank Susie on my staff, who spent a few years on this.

I believe in the process, she found a mate, got married, got pregnant, had a baby, and is at home with that baby, hopefully watching on TV.

And thank Alicia, my staff, who's kind of picked up the baton and carried it to where we are today.

So with that, without further ado, I'll move the piece of legislation, agenda item number one, as amended.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And opposed?

None abstained.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ali.

Thank you so much, Ali, for your work.

Kelly, would you like to read agenda item number two into the record?

Yes, we have appointment 01371, appointment of Vicki Clark as a member of the levy to move Seattle Oversight Committee for a term to December 31st, 2022. Come on forward.

Hey there.

We will start with introductions.

Perfect, so I'm Lorelei Williams.

I'm the Deputy Director at SDOT for Capital Project Delivery, and I'm here to introduce Vicky for the MOVE Seattle Levy Oversight Committee.

Our Oversight Committee is an advisory body that monitors revenues, expenditures, and program and project implementation.

The Oversight Committee advises the city council, the mayor, and SDOT on responding to program and project cost savings and overruns.

Vicky's position fills the remainder of our vacant positions, and she will serve through December 31st of 2022. And Vicky is the policy director for Cascade Bicycle Club, but I'm going to turn it over to her to introduce herself more completely.

Hello, Vicky.

Introduce yourself to us.

Hello.

Is this on?

Yeah, you're on.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Vicky Clark.

Excuse me.

As Lorelei said, I serve as the Policy Director at Cascade Bicycle Club.

I've been with the club for the last three years.

I've actually been working on transportation in this region for the last, I was just counting, 11 years.

both really in transportation and land use planning and funding.

And I think that's really something that I bring to the Oversight Committee.

I've worked on advancing all kinds of transportation projects through federal funding and state and regional funding too.

And so I think You know, I think the levy is a huge investment in this region and transforming our, excuse me, in the city and transforming our multimodal transportation system into something that reflects all of our, all of the city's policies.

And I think I'm excited to add my voice to that and my expertise.

Great.

Orly, thank you for being here.

We don't get your presence here to present appointees very often, so I appreciate you doing that.

We had a little schedule challenge, so I'm filling in.

Glad you were able to do it.

You did outstanding.

Add it to one of your resume items.

And Vicky, I really appreciate your willingness to serve on this.

We've had a chance to work together quite a bit over the past couple years.

I've served on the levy oversight committee for the past few years, too.

And I know your voice will be a really important one to have at the table.

You're filling a slot that was currently hold or previously held by Brian Estes, who played a very important role, really someone who brings a strong set of values and a strong set of oversight.

to the work and ask some really hard questions that I think are really important.

When he heard that you were going to replace him, he was overjoyed.

So that made me even happier.

So anyways, I look forward to having you on the committee.

And I think, I know this is a big time commitment on top of the other things you do, but your perspective will be great.

Colleagues, any questions or comments for Vicky?

Obviously, we've already, this committee has seen Vicky's advocacy for multimodal transportation, for public transit, for pedestrians, and for bicyclists.

So, I have no doubt that you will be doing more of the work you already do.

So, thank you.

Thanks.

If there's nothing further, we'll go ahead and move Agenda Item 2, Appointment 01371. Second.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Competition to second you there, Vicky.

That's a compliment.

Thanks.

We're excited for you to serve, and I'll see you at the meeting soon.

Thanks.

Great.

Thank you, guys.

Now, would you like to read agenda number three into the record, and then we'll go to public comment?

Okay.

Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Plan 2019 to 2024.

Thank you.

So we will go ahead and reopen public comment to speak to the BMP Implementation Plan.

There are 16 people signed up.

So let's go ahead and do a minute each, and we'll try to get through all of them.

I'm not sure if everyone's here.

We are definitely going to go a little bit over our four o'clock agenda.

I believe I warned everybody at the committee that this was likely to happen.

So, and I appreciate folks who have been here all day in the audience and I apologize for a long committee, but a lot of stuff to cover.

Bree Gankild is first, followed by Steve Wilkins and then Megan Murphy.

Hi, I was on the One Center City Advisory Group, as you know.

And during that process, the partner agencies came to an impasse when it came to bike lanes east of 3rd Avenue, which had been one of the goals of the One Center City process.

What they told us is there was no way to put bike lanes in without impeding transit.

We said transit is a priority.

bike lanes are a priority, go back and figure it out.

And they did.

To their credit, they came up with a clever solution to make 5th and 6th a bus corridor so that there'd be room on 4th Avenue for a two-way bikeway.

Great, we were happy.

They congratulated us on our advocacy.

We congratulated them on their creative thinking.

Everybody was happy.

We all patted each other on the back.

A few months later, several months later, we learned that, in fact, the 4th Avenue bike lanes were being delayed until 2021 because, in case of a fish truck situation, buses might need the flexibility of the additional space, given that the bike lanes were supposed to be part of the solution that seemed problematic.

I'll, sorry, I'm out of time.

But now we're even more frustrated to see the implementation plan not only further delays those bike lanes, but reduces them to one lane.

Thanks.

Thank you, Bri, and thanks for serving on that committee.

That's, and your perspective is really helpful.

Steve?

Steve may not be here.

Megan?

Megan, you're gonna be followed by Robert Getsch.

Nope, good.

Okay, Robert already spoke.

Vicki Clark will be next, and then Joe Scott.

Thanks for letting me speak.

I've been listening to the show that used to be Mind Over Matter, and now it has a new home.

I can't think of the name right now, but they talked about One Center City, and they're not meeting as much as they're supposed to, so on 3rd Avenue.

They were supposed to implement those scanner things for your bus card, and it was $3 million that was invested in the research.

And there was supposed to be people standing at the things taking the cards.

And so this is a transportation impediment that has not been fulfilled by one center city lack of meeting.

I'm hoping, you see, when we organize, we win.

So I've been organizing for my son, and my family got to see my son for his birthday.

And I got 85 signatures where people described me and people around town.

Somehow I got my mail.

to my son, and I learned it all here at City Hall.

And then my mom saw my son last Friday, so it has changed things.

So I'm just hoping we can organize better for these bike lanes, because when we really organize and get signatures and push the people that are in leadership positions, then really cool things happen.

Thanks.

Thanks, Megan.

Vicky?

I wasn't ready.

Good afternoon.

I'm Vicki Clark.

I'm the Policy Director at Cascade Bicycle Club.

There is a lot to say on the BMP, so I want to just say a couple of high-level things.

We're really grateful that the City released this plan as a draft back in April.

It gave the community the opportunity to underscore that continuing to omit safe bike connections to and through Southeast Seattle is not acceptable.

Connections have been added to the plan, but we need to build these connections and not just plan for them.

In fact, we need to plan, design, and build every single one of the projects contained in the final draft of the BMP implementation plan.

This is not about frivolity.

Every single one of these projects is about something as fundamental, as mundane as people being able to get home safely regardless of how they get around.

That's why we'll be there every step of the way, holding our leaders accountable to the commitments made in this plan.

Thanks.

Thank you, Vicky.

Joe?

Joe, you're going to be followed by Jake, Noah Staka, and then Clara Cantor.

So I've been hearing from A lot of folks over the years, since I moved here, who are afraid of bike lanes.

These people often twist themselves into knots with bad, false information to justify their fears.

And SDOT and City Hall has listened to them, delayed and slashed pieces of the Bike Master Plan.

I'm here in support of the Green New Deal for Seattle.

And here's the truth, which is nothing to be scared of.

When we make our states safe to bike, everyone wins.

Bikers and drivers alike have safer roads.

More women who are more likely to feel physically unsafe on the road will have space to bike.

Communities impacted by pollution get cleaner air right now, and the world gets less carbon emissions.

The Green New Deal calls for a just transition, and that means equitable implementation of the Bike Master Plan, not just in richer and whiter neighborhoods, which has been what's been happening.

Thanks.

That's all.

Thanks, Joe.

Jake?

I'm Jake Novosaka with 350 Seattle.

My fiance and I bike for many reasons, one of those being climate change.

And we're happy to see that the city's working on this bike master plan to improve and encourage biking in the city.

However, I don't buy that we don't have funding for all these projects.

This is a matter of priorities and not funding.

Earlier today, I was with many other Seattleites up at the mayor's office in support of the Green New Deal.

And the deputy mayor came out saying that the mayor was in support of this and in support of a green Seattle, but I don't see this in the handling of the bike master plan.

We need to prioritize the BMP, find funding for this, make Seattle a better place to bike, and reduce our carbon emissions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jake.

Clara?

Clara, you're going to be followed.

The next person at Eve Keller, Flora Temple, and Milo Hart all signed up.

If you're all here, you can come speak together.

And then MC Halverson is next.

Hi, my name is Clara Cantor.

I'm a Community Organizer for Seattle Neighborhood Greenways.

In the interest of saving time here, I'm just going to say that I support a lot of what has already been said in the crowd.

We want to express extreme gratitude to the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Mayor's Office for including a number of the really critical routes that the community was expressing an extreme desire for over the course of the month that they did outreach on the initial draft.

There's also some critical projects included in the original draft that we're really excited about.

And I also just want to say that being included in the plan isn't really enough, that they need to be funded and they need to be projects that we actually see on the ground before they're gonna start saving people's lives.

So we're looking to city council and to continue working with the mayor's office to actually fund those projects and to implement other policy upgrades to the bicycle programs that we have in Seattle to make sure that people are safe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Claire.

All right, Eve, Flora, and Milo, come on forward.

Sorry, MC, you're going to be after this threesome that comes forward.

I beg your pardon?

You're after the people right behind you.

There's someone in front of me?

Yeah.

They're right behind you.

They're in front of you, yes.

Yeah, we can put you all together.

Three minutes.

There we go.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

My name is Flora Temple.

I'm the Administrative Assistant for the Mount Baker Hub Alliance.

And so first off, we want to thank you for funding project number 41 through construction, which completes the Rainier Valley North-South Greenway.

And especially to thank you for funding bicycle lanes on MLK Jr.

Way from Rainier to I-90 through construction.

MLK has significant extra capacity and a connecting bike route to the I-90 Mount Stassown Trail has been requested there for a very long time.

Second, we want to encourage UNSDOT to move towards funding for construction of bike route on the rest of MLK south of Rainier, which is part of that larger MLK study area.

And then finally, we ask you to consider creating additional space for bike lanes on Rainier Avenue as it undergoes changes.

Hi, my name is Eve Keller.

I'm president of the Mt. Baker Hub Alliance.

And we are currently undergoing a very major project where we're reaching out to property owners.

Milo has written letters to about 130 property owners in our area, and I would love to encourage you to work with property owners and ask about extending the sidewalks and to create bike lanes along Rainier Avenue.

It will support our businesses.

We don't have parking for many of our businesses.

If we can have bike lanes to make greater increases in our pedestrian traffic and inter-bicycling traffic that will be nothing but an asset for the business down in the Mount Baker area.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that comment, Eve.

I think we're good.

Is that it?

All right.

Thank you, three.

I appreciate you being here.

Now, MC, sorry for that delay.

MC, you're going to be followed by John Barber, I think.

No.

John Brister, maybe.

And then Adrian Brankets.

Go ahead, MC.

As you know, I spoke against adopting this particular bicycle plan.

I felt it wasn't realistic, and I felt it went overboard for the bicycles.

Also, the bicycles do not pay anything for road maintenance, anything in a tax for road maintenance.

if they get a preponderance of money spent on their bicycle programs to the detriment of road maintenance.

The roads in the manufacturing industrial center at Duwamish River, a certain section of them, are a disgrace.

At any event, I was told that this implementation had a change to the bicycle.

a plan, and I couldn't find out what it was.

I don't know if that information is correct, but I'm going to listen to the implementation to see if there's anything in there that I don't agree with, and if so, I'll email you.

Thank you.

Thank you, MC.

John?

Is there a John, last name starts with a B, that I might be mispronouncing?

All right.

How about we move to Ariande Brancats?

followed by Michael Foster and then Heather Price.

Hello, my name is Ariadne Brancato.

Thank you for giving me a moment to speak.

I have been commuting by bicycle in Seattle since 2011. I'm very fortunate that I wasn't seriously injured in the two times I was hit by a car while biking around.

I'm excited about the Bicycle Master Plan in part as a matter of personal safety.

It is super important that the city provides more infrastructure for people who do not want to or cannot drive a car or take transit.

But more than my personal safety, I want to also speak to a crisis that affects everyone.

Climate change is already making entire countries uninhabitable.

I read last week that temperatures in cities in Southeast Asia are experiencing right now temperatures over 120 degrees Fahrenheit, temperatures that are catastrophic to human health and productivity.

These heat waves are a result of climate change.

So while it would be absurd for us here to try to build bike lanes in Khartoum or Jakarta, we can implement policies that reduce our carbon pollution locally.

So in addition to pushing through the Bicycle Master Plan, we need a Green New Deal for our city that will eliminate climate pollution by 2030, address current and historical injustices, and create thousands of jobs.

Sorry, I wasn't looking.

Thank you.

Michael.

Hey, I'm Michael Foster and I hope you can see me because every day I risk my life on Seattle City streets and it's terrifying and I'm tired.

It's exhausting.

My kid was hit by a car.

I know that people are getting hit regularly here in the city and you know I'm out there.

I'm on an electric bike.

I have a little more speed and nimbleness now that I got an electric bike, but my nightmare is being run down by an Uber or Lyft driver or a Tesla on autopilot.

That's my real nightmare.

A Tesla on autopilot keeps me up at night because that's the future that's supposed to save us.

So it's unsafe for kids who want to bike to school.

You've got the money.

You've got the will.

You've got the people.

They were all out here on this weekend.

Please fund the entire plan and do it now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Heather?

Heather Price?

Not seeing Heather.

Deborah Riley?

And then Richard Schwartz.

I don't see Debra, Richard.

And if there's anyone else who wants to provide public comment, why don't you come up and get in line behind Richard.

Good afternoon.

In my experience, projects involve three elements, planning, implementation, and management.

It's hard to identify a management component of the Master Bike Plan.

My particular context is the Westlake Cycle Track.

It was planned and implemented, but there's no management.

There's no speed controls, no enforcement of bike shield to the pedestrians law, little signage, and what exists is ignored.

According to the city's Vision Zero literature, safety is speed and safety are directly related.

On page six, it says, we know that lower vehicle speeds are a primary factor that influence traffic safety.

On page six, it also says we focus on speed reduction.

On page nine, it says drivers yield 75% of the time when traveling 20 miles per hour.

They only yield 17% of the time when traveling 37 miles per hour.

We ask that specific management procedures and resources be part of the bike master plan.

Cycling is increasing in the city, speeds are increasing with the introduction of high-tech vehicles.

It is not responsible management to simply leave it up to cyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles to sort this out for themselves.

There are two reasons this lack of proactive management is a problem for everyone involved.

First, according to the Vision Zero program, speed and lack of traffic law enforcement strongly influence public safety.

Secondly, lack of clearly visible proactive management of cycling infrastructure has led to a significant number of citizens having a negative view of cycling.

Let's get a wrap up, Richard.

Your time's up.

Hi there, thanks for hearing me.

I think that the full- Would you introduce yourself?

My name is Jessica Roxanne Jones.

I work in theater around the city.

I travel to many venues by bike.

I'm an avid biker and bike advocate.

I think that the safer we feel as bikers on the road and the more supported by our fellow transit takers, the more often that we'll be biking and the more conditioned we'll be for the challenges of biking.

the safer we will continue to be.

I think showing full support in this bike master plan will allow more people to continue to bike around the city and therefore create a positive feedback loop in which we can implement one of the most important points in our transportation future, which is zero emissions.

And biking is already doing that.

So thank you so much.

Thanks for being here, Jessica.

Folks, come on forward.

And if you just state your name, and I'll write you down on the sign-in list, and then you can speak.

Go ahead.

My name is Carol Haffar, and I came here just to get comfortable today.

But I would like to thank Richard for his comments.

I think it would save all of us a lot of trouble and possibly harm if our residential, particularly residential, arterials in this city were reduced to 25 miles an hour, and I'd like it to be posted.

Thank you.

You bet.

Thank you for being here.

Hello, I'm Jessica Westkern and I'm speaking on myself as a cyclist.

In the last year, five of my friends were hit by cars while on their bicycles.

I was hit by a car in a bike lane in a bright red dress where I was supposed to be by a distracted driver who didn't want to be at a red light.

I moved to Seattle in 2007 without a car.

I will not buy a car.

I don't plan on ever having one, despite how many jobs tell me I need one.

I'll find a different job.

But I need to be able to get from Wallingford to West Seattle to Georgetown to Bellevue safely, and my friends need to get there safely.

I'm lucky I'm here.

I'm not 100% better 14 months later, but I'm here and I'm riding, and I want to be able to do so safely.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

Thank you for everyone who came to provide public comment.

We will move into this agenda item.

We already read it into the record, correct?

Yes.

So come on forward, presenters.

We will get the presentation queued up.

I wanted to share with the audience and my colleagues a couple photos of the rally that happened outside City Hall on Sunday, on Father's Day.

Oh, there we go.

It was quite the crowd on Father's Day who turned out to talk about what they would like to see in the bike implementation plan.

We had a number of speakers and then following the rally they closed briefly 4th Avenue so folks of all abilities and ages could navigate from City Hall up to Westlake Park and It was great hearing people talk about how great it felt to feel safe riding on downtown streets.

And it was a lovely day, and it was impressive to see so many folks out on Father's Day.

So we're going to jump into a presentation.

A couple of points of order I wanted to just discuss as we jump through here.

Maybe we'll start with introductions.

So Sam, do you want to go first?

Sam Zimbabwe, Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation.

Sam Curtin, Interim Director of the Project Development Division at SDOT.

Monica Dewald, project development division and manage the bike master plan.

Amanda Barnett, co-chair of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board.

Emily Payne, co-chair of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board.

Thank you all so much for being here.

Before we get into the presentation, there was a couple things.

At our last committee meeting, we wrote a letter to you about 35th, and I'm not sure if I've received it yet.

I haven't seen it, but I've been here for a little while and been kind of distracted.

I signed it this morning, so I'm not sure if you have gotten it either, but we will make sure that you have it back, and we can discuss that as well.

OK, so we'd love to discuss that a little bit today, if that's possible.

One of the other things I wanted to just flag, we didn't have a chance to talk about this when I saw you the other day, but we talked about a couple weeks ago a bike installation on Swift Myrtle that, at least from some folks' impression, didn't quite go as planned.

And if you had anything specific to say there, that'd be great.

And with that, I guess I'll just turn it over to you.

If you want to address those or wherever they fit in the overall scheme of things, I'll defer to your timing.

Sure.

I think we can jump in.

Those aren't directly addressed in the presentation.

I think we can maybe go through some of the presentation and then also talk about where those sit.

I think some of those, some of the issues on Swift, Myrtle, Othello, come into play on the implementation from where things go from here to and our accountability in terms of delivering projects and all the way down to the details of design and construction and construction management.

So if we can start here.

So just a quick overview and some of this is things that we presented when we presented the plan in April but wanted to reinforce and explain them again.

But just I wanted to start with a little bit of vision and then I'll turn it over to Jim on and then Monica on the plan as it stands and what we heard through the outreach process, which was new this year.

Great.

As we just procedurally as we go through, I will invite my colleagues if you have clarifying questions, but I also, Amanda and Emily, I also appreciate you both being here.

And if you have questions or comments, if we go through the slide, please feel free to just signal me or you can just jump right into.

Okay, so the the bicycle master plan implementation plan is a critical part of the mayor and my vision for for building out a multimodal transportation system in in the city and that is is building out safe connected infrastructure for all modes, thinking about the equity and the affordability of that transportation, and making sure that we're providing people transportation choices that people feel are accessible and available to them.

This is part, this plan, you can go forward.

is part of continuing to deliver on that and a lot of pieces that we have already delivered and will continue to deliver.

So this is just a snapshot of all the things that have happened sort of in the multimodal transportation space since the mayor took office.

And I think the bike master plan sits within this larger context of a changing transportation network in Seattle that we are working to deliver on and manage through some big changes as we go.

That includes making permanent the free floating bike sharing program.

It includes launching accessibility programs with Outdoors for All, thinking about transit accessibility, affordability, and thinking about where we go in the long term in terms of continuing to build out transit, manage congestion, and things like that.

And I think then that translates directly into the vision for the bike network which is expressed through this implementation plan of building a robust and connected network of infrastructure and then managing that infrastructure and maintaining it to make sure that it is accessible and remains affordable as we know riding a bike is.

So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jim, but just talk about what has been done in the last few years, you know, project delivery items, building, since the mayor took office, 13 miles of new facilities, with 11 more miles to come this year.

building out the Center City bike network, finishing important projects, some of which, you know, we talked about there, the Swift-Merrill-Othello.

I think we've seen some of the feedback and are thinking about what kind of adjustments that we are making in terms of some of those transition points and making sure that we're designing those facilities so that they are safe and usable.

I think that those facilities in particular, show what some of the challenges we face in the right-of-way when we move from concept through to implementation and the constraints that we're working with within limited right-of-way.

That said, I think we've identified that there are some design tweaks that we can make to make that feel more comfortable for people.

That's specifically on the Swift-Myrtle-Othello.

Is that timing on that, or what's the, some of the slides I saw, I don't need to bring them up here, but looked a little, from a design perspective, a little bit scary.

Specifically, I think what we're talking about is this transition points where we've got new bus stops that, where we've got bike lanes that then have, that navigate around new bus stops, and sort of, right now, I think, the transition points aren't very comfortable.

So figuring out how we improve that.

So I think we've got some designs.

I don't have a timeline yet on when those will be implemented.

Let's check back in on that, but the number one goal here, and you guys know this and say it all the time, is safety.

And so just making sure if we have something out that it didn't quite go right, however we get in there to make sure that no one gets hurt while we're figuring it out is great.

Yep.

So I'll say that we've already made some field adjustments in the signage and markings out there, but there are some longer term changes that we'll also make.

I appreciate the responsiveness on that.

Excellent, so thank you very much for having us today.

To transition into the bike master plan and the implementation plan that we've been developing, as we mentioned when we came here, I believe in early April, the objective of the BMP implementation plan was to increase transparency.

and deliver a realistic, prioritized implementation plan that holds us accountable.

So this document is very much an accountability document for the Bicycle Advisory Board and advocates that are here today and listening throughout the city of Seattle.

This was done in accordance with the Levy to Move Seattle assessment.

It acknowledges some of our constraints like increased construction costs, recognizes those implementation challenges that we have on many projects that we go to implement.

And it goes to reprioritize projects to match the $76.8 million in funding that we have.

And new this year, we gathered input from stakeholders.

So, a little bit more information on that, in order to expand this discussion for really the first time for the implementation plan, we hosted four workshops in April and these were held throughout the city in various different locations.

We also briefed the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board and the Levy Oversight Committee to get feedback from them as well.

And of course, we've heard comments at our previous council meetings and today as well, which we very much appreciate.

In all, we had more than 350 folks who came out to attend meetings, took our survey, and we received more than 550 emails on the matter as well.

Jim, I'll pause there for a second.

I really appreciate how swiftly You responded.

You heard, I think, I can't remember, maybe it was Vicki, someone in public comment today saying, we're grateful for the plan.

I imagine you didn't feel very grateful when the plan was released a few months ago, but I think it was an opportunity for, it served as kind of a rallying point, and I really appreciate how you all responded pretty quickly.

You know, in less than a month's notice, scheduling four meetings is no small feat just to find room capacity.

I know Department of Neighborhoods helped you with that, but really appreciate the opening that up.

And as you said, for the first time for that type of public input on a process.

So that was really great.

Thank you.

Yeah, we appreciate that.

It's reinvigorating for staff to go out here and hear from people who are chomping at the bit to get new bike facilities out there.

So what we heard, we heard a lot about the different values that we have as a city.

We heard first and foremost and repeatedly that people want to provide us to provide those safe and connected facilities so that there's a seamless network no matter where you're trying to get in the city of Seattle.

As we heard today, we heard a lot of discussion about climate change and how it should be a priority and how we make decisions.

And equity as well to make sure that the investments that we're making are occurring citywide and not just in particular neighborhoods.

We want to obviously create some transparency in decision making, which is really the whole reason why we've reset the approach with the BMP implementation plan.

And we want to use data to tell the story.

And again, we showed this slide when we were here in April, but this does tell the story that during the Seattle squeeze, biking was a great, reliable alternative to obviously driving.

And it shows that if we build the facilities, people do come and use them, which is exactly what we would hope.

We also heard that we have some other needs out there that need addressing.

So maintaining bike infrastructure, what is already built out there, is a huge priority.

We've heard that we need to remove debris from bike facilities.

And I do want to mention that in the month of May, we did go out and rent a smaller sweeper so that we could get out.

And we did sweep, remove debris, and clean every single protected bike lane in the city of Seattle.

And we are working to develop a long-term maintenance plan for the facilities that we build out there.

Another thing we heard is that some signage improvements would be really helpful, especially folks who might be new to biking in Seattle.

I appreciate those.

You know, we spend a lot of time talking about the big things.

You know, where are you going to put a PBL on a major arterial?

But I do know for a lot of folks, especially this time of year when folks are dipping their toe in the bike commuting or whatever bike errand market, how that experience is.

Obviously, the safety of the facility is a huge thing.

But if it's covered with gravel, if you can't tell where you're going, if you're not sure, the transition from one place to the next.

can make the difference between, wow, that was great, I'm going to do it more, versus like, yeah, it doesn't feel right.

So I appreciate.

We will talk a lot about the big things, but I also appreciate your attention to the small details that really make a difference.

Absolutely.

We heard a lot about projects.

We heard really strong support from the community about the Center City Bike Network and how those projects really need to be built so people can get through downtown, not just on 2nd Avenue, but in all the different parts of the Center City.

A connection to downtown Seattle was a priority in just about every single neighborhood we went to.

And by that I mean not just in southeast Seattle, but we heard that repeatedly from folks across the city.

We heard a strong desire for a connection to downtown from Soto, through Soto, really, from Georgetown and South Park.

George Park.

George Park.

I'm inviting new neighborhoods here is one of the things I'm gonna do, I guess, today.

We definitely heard really strong support for projects like the Burke-Gilman Trail, East Lake and Roosevelt and the Green Lake Park projects as well.

And people told us to go find some more revenue.

So as we balance our budget and our needs across the department, that is definitely something that we're going to commit to doing here.

I'm going to put a sticker on that one.

We'll come back to that in a moment.

And also, we heard a lot about the public engagement aspect of our work, which is something that we're continuously trying to improve.

And you'll see that we have incorporated some of this into this plan here, especially this first bullet here is make sure that we're talking about the public, you know, the benefits of these projects and not just the risks and the challenges.

But in order to tell a complete story, we really need to tell both sides.

of the coin here, so you'll see we have adjusted that moving forward.

Engage with all people invested or impacted by a particular project.

Increase coordination so that we're not inundating people with public meetings and asking them to take their precious time out of their own lives to come out and listen to us talk all the time.

And engage with communities of color, people of all ages and ability, and people who are new to biking as well.

So with that, we moved into prioritizing projects.

And as we mentioned when we were here in April, there's a quantitative component of our prioritization, which is noted in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan.

After that, there's a qualitative side of things where we work with the Bicycle Advisory Board to look at the geographic balancing, making sure that we're building in as many neighborhoods as we can.

Also looking at those different leveraging and partnering opportunities to help us prioritize.

And then, of course, as we just discussed, new this year, we use the input received during our outreach to inform the plan.

I would mention, I do want to mention before I move on that it was a pretty significant effort this time around.

I think we produced a 50-plus page document with multiple iterations of our project list.

We are looking to streamline that effort moving forward so that we can spend less time working on prioritization and more time actually implementing the project, which is I think everyone's goal.

We are, of course, committed to equity here.

The projects are reviewed for geographic balance.

We look at the socioeconomic factors, health and accessibility indicators, and these are incorporated into our quantitative analysis and confirmed in our qualitative work with the SPAC.

The new implementation plan, the basics haven't changed a whole lot since last time we were here.

This is still a six-year plan to align with the levy to move Seattle reassessment.

It includes $76.8 million in investments in Seattle's bike network.

We will build 50 miles of new facilities with this plan.

And we will have an additional 29 miles in the planning and design phase so that those projects are ready to go when we get that extra revenue and that funding that we'll be seeking.

When all is said and done in 2024, we will create nearly 200 miles, a network that's nearly 200 miles long.

and deliver these transformative projects that everybody really wants to see on the streets.

And that includes some big priority projects.

These are the big things that we were talking about earlier here, including the Center City Bike Network.

Rapid Ride Roosevelt project, which contains significant amounts of new bike facilities on East Lake.

The Green Lake Park Loop projects, which will be under construction for the next several years, at least two years.

The Burke Inland Trail Missing Link and our project on East Marginal Way, which we have officially secured grant funding for.

We will be moving forward with phase one of the project, which is that really critical connection over to West Seattle on East Marginal Way, which will now, when all is said and done, will completely separate bikes from the heavy freight traffic out there.

was at the Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Policy Board when they approved the contingency list, and this was at the top of that list, so we already authorized the funding for that and hopeful anticipation of that, so I really appreciate SDOT's swift work, both on behalf of the folks that will benefit from that project, which is both freight and bike users, But frankly, on behalf of the region, because this was a project that hadn't been slated and needed, I believe, some work for the city to do to get it up and ready so that we could spend federal money before it disappeared from the region.

So I appreciate work on both ends of that.

And we appreciate that support as well.

And we are completely committed to building these projects, but they're not done yet.

So we still need people to come out to our public meetings and voice their support for these projects as we move forward, as we move closer to implementation.

Everyone's voices need to be heard.

Another component is our commitment to seek new revenue.

As you know, some of the projects that are in the plan have been advanced into a planning and design phase, but we do not have committed funding to construct everything that's contained in the plan.

So we are committed to seeking that additional revenue, whether that be a grant or another partnership in order to advance the BMP.

What's new in the plan, we are sharing the project benefits.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the things we heard during outreach was that we're talking all about the reasons why these projects are hard, but we're not really talking much about why these projects are going to benefit the city of Seattle and people who choose to travel here.

So you'll see throughout the documents, we've created these icons that represent various different things, whether we're connecting to transit or schools, community centers, or parks.

We want to make sure that we're identifying projects that have some RSJ implications, where we have some opportunities, and where we're connecting to existing bike facilities, because ultimately we want to have a safe and connected network when all's said and done.

And we're highlighting those costs and challenges for transparency.

As mentioned earlier, we definitely want to be as transparent as possible in our decision making, and part of that is being upfront about what we see on these projects before these projects actually head into the planning and design phase.

Furthermore, we have some new projects on the list.

We're really excited to bring a project on Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard from I-90 to Rainier Avenue, basically the Mount Baker Light Rail Station to fruition.

We will be funding that through a partnership with our Vision Zero program.

And we are really excited to get started on that project, which will make a really critical link and bring folks to downtown Seattle via the I-90 Trail, but also connect up with the Rainier North-South Neighborhood Greenway and other important connections along the way.

I do want to note that we have the 4th Avenue one-way northbound protected bike lane funded through construction.

And we have a number of projects that have been prioritized for planning and design, including the entirety of Beacon Avenue South, which is a multi-mile route, which would connect from the Dr. Jose Rizal Bridge to 39th Avenue South.

Again, studying more of MLK to see exactly how far south we can go, hopefully all the way to Henderson.

We're looking, of course, at Georgetown, George Park.

Georgetown, sorry, Georgetown to downtown.

The center city, obviously there's a lot of exciting opportunities in the works downtown on the waterfront.

So we have Alaskan Way on here.

We're also looking at projects in Pioneer Square to connect up with the new waterfront.

We're evaluating 12th Avenue, which I know we're all pretty well versed on 12th Avenue at the table here.

And we're also looking at connecting the Admiral neighborhood to the West Seattle Greenway, which phase one has been completed.

Phase two is now in the works, and this would be the next phase, which would connect basically all of West Seattle via a north-south spying route.

So, I have a clarifying question.

Why was the fourth lane, the Fourth Avenue bike lane reduced to a northbound only lane?

So, I can take a little bit of that.

Some of this, you know, some of this predates me a little bit, but I've tried to quickly get up to speed on history.

So, just to reiterate something that Jim said, we view this plan as an accountability plan of like what are we actually delivering.

within the time period.

The 4th Avenue protected bike lane, we've committed previously to designing a two-way facility, but the traffic impacts of that and frankly the costs of that have never been fully studied and evaluated.

So the costs of what it would take to upgrade signal infrastructure, to protect turns across a two-way protected bike lane, wasn't part of the planning process previously, true cost estimates, and that's where I think we found, as an agency, we found challenges when we were working to implement a similar project on 2nd Avenue.

So we are A one-way lane doesn't have some of those same cost implications.

A two-way lane, which we have committed to designing to be able to better understand what those implications are from an operations and a cost perspective, is still part of what we've committed to doing.

But it's hard in an implementation plan to put in the construction of that when we don't know what the full scope and scale of the project is.

And I think to add on to what Sam said there, we've seen some pretty significant potential delays for transit on the corridor.

And those are the issues that we want to work out.

And we do ultimately want to see a two-way facility out there.

But we still have some kinks to work out first.

So the team is going to get back into design and see if there's some tweaks we can make to the previous iteration of the plan to make things function better out there for everyone.

I appreciate the question because I have more about that and we've talked a little bit about it, but I'll repeat some of the things I've told you privately.

One is we prioritize both transit and bike infrastructure and of course pedestrian safety.

I know when we put all three of those in, it's like, which is the priority?

And my response is going to be all of them are priority.

I specifically did leave out general purpose automobiles.

We are certainly have done an amazing job in the city of reducing the number of people who commute in general in their private automobiles.

And I think as our city continues to grow, that's going to be the area where It's the least efficient and the most polluting way to get around, and that's the place we're going to have to make some sacrifices.

So I'm really interested in, as you look at the modeling, to aggressively look at how do we make sure we have good speed and reliability for our transit, a safe bike network, and safe pedestrian environment.

And then tell us what's left over for general purpose, and we'll figure out how to manage that.

It's easy to say here.

I realize there's some challenges with that.

But that's going to be what I'm hoping to see as we look on forth.

The other comment I want to make is I recognize that that these projects can get expensive.

And it's really not fair to put that price on the sidewalks we've talked about.

Well, certain things might require new curb cuts.

Well, we should be doing and need to be doing new ADA curb cuts in a bunch of places anyways.

And so there's a cost to that.

That may be a cost that's triggered because we're doing a bike facility, but the cost shouldn't be borne by the bike program.

That cost should be borne by I realize that just saying that, this money still has to come from somewhere.

Similarly, we have signals that are very outdated.

We saw this on 2nd Avenue.

The signals, for the most part, are serving cars to make sure that they're moving safely around our street.

And so, you know, again, it's a cost, and if we're going to do the project, we have to do it.

And so where we come up with the money is an open question.

I think the cost of not putting in these facilities is going to be catastrophic.

It's going to be from a safety perspective for those who choose to bike in traffic but are also uncomfortable but don't have a choice.

We see where collisions can happen and lead to injuries.

Obviously, that is not good for anyone.

It also means costs and our liability for the city because we end up paying for those.

The cost for folks that don't feel safe riding on the street and choose to go on the sidewalk, whether they're in a bike or a scooter or a wheelie device-y thing that people have, means that our already constrained pedestrian environment downtown is becoming less and less friendly, especially to our most vulnerable users.

It was really great at the rally on Sunday that there were folks from different aspects of the disability community talking with cyclists saying, we need to see safer bike infrastructure, and we can't do that at the expense of our community.

So we need to be innovating in a transportation way that doesn't do it on the backs of the most vulnerable.

In fact, it needs to be making the improvements to the most vulnerable road users first.

And so I worry that if we have a one-way one way route to get to work when you're heading northbound and then what are you supposed to do coming southbound?

You're going to maybe put yourself at risk that you're not comfortable with or maybe you're getting on a sidewalk and putting someone else at risk and that's.

not sustainable.

And finally, from a climate perspective, and we've heard that connection in public comment a lot today, we simply have to, you know, we have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels like yesterday.

And so the urgency around figuring this out is real.

You're hearing that from community.

I want to support you all in figuring out how we can study that as soon as possible.

Fourth Avenue is an example we're talking about, but it's the whole network too.

Council Member Sawant.

Just wanted to echo a couple of points you made.

First of all, a thank you to everyone from SDOT and the advisory board for all the work you've been doing.

But also just to reiterate that it is catastrophic for our community from two ends.

One is health and lives are on the line.

And I don't think that's a melodramatic or a hyperbolic thing to say.

It's actually true.

One of my staff members was hit while bicycling in the U district last fall.

Another of my staff member in the winter this year.

And it was actually quite bad.

He was laid up in Harborview Emergency for a long time.

And it was actually scary for me to see his, you know, he sent me photos from, this is Ted, so.

you know he sent me photos from from the emergency room but it's stuck in my brain because this is a real issue so obviously catastrophic from that end but also catastrophic from the question of climate change and these are the people who are talking uh advocating for the completion of the bike master plan are the people who are the most commit some of the people who are the most committed to addressing climate change and they shouldn't have to advocate for a real solution against climate change because it's obvious.

And then I'll also echo the other point, which is that ADA compliant sidewalks should be done in a world-class city anyway.

It should not be connected to, or it should not be, the burden of that should not be paid for by ending up sacrificing other goals of the bike master plan.

That should be done by the city anyway.

I want to also acknowledge that some of the best bike advocates in the city work in Estoc and I know that you have some amazing folks doing work and how we set up a system, how we create a budget, how we create politics that allow some amazing people to do the work that they really want to do is really important to us too.

We'll sit here and sound like we're lecturing to you.

And I know, Sam, you could probably just turn around and give me the same lecture right back, because you've been doing this for a while.

But I really do want to lift up that I think that SDOT has done some amazing work, because you've got some great folks.

That hasn't always been the case in my 20 years of bike advocacy, but it feels like it's a really awesome group of folks.

And I want to make sure we keep them all and keep them busy working on these awesome projects.

Council Member Pacheco.

It just kind of sounds like when I'm hearing this conversation about money, like we're just scraping for dollars here, there, anywhere we can find them.

So I do think that every little bit matters, which kind of leads, I think, to really what I've been really kind of pushed for, which is really taking and supporting Mike's push for scooters.

Because I think rather than waiting for 2020 to pilot, in the winter of 2020, a scooter pilot would be more successful and potentially financially more beneficial to pilot something in the summer.

So I think that just kind of creates a little more urgency to that.

That said, you know, I do think that there's a sense of urgency.

I mean, we hear it, I hear it, Mike hears it, sorry, Council Member O'Brien hears it, Council Member Solano.

Everyone hears it with regards to addressing our climate change goals.

I mean, speaking to myself, just the need for this infrastructure is so important because without it, I quite frankly would not.

be riding a bike to work every day, just because it's dangerous.

So, and it's really what it's allowed, has allowed me to give up a car, and that's kind of really what we're trying to reduce is single occupancy usership.

But I do want to give a word of caution with regards to when commitments are made.

And commitments, when they're made with regards to like the move Seattle levy, and the projects aren't completed, We erode public trust.

And, you know, when we think about the larger picture about what's going to happen potentially, what I fear is, you know, when we're trying to think about potential new levies around the need to, you know, dollars for our projects, it's not just potholes.

It's to create the safe infrastructure that we need to get people out of cars.

And so I want to make sure that these are the commitments that we make, that these are the commitments that we keep.

Yeah, so just to respond to that point in particular, and I think especially around the revenue aspects of this, you know, this implementation plan takes us through the end of the Move Seattle levy.

It is resource constrained, and we heard loud and clear the need for additional revenue.

We didn't go and program revenue in the intervening period between the draft and the final just because we heard that call.

That is something to, as a discussion to have going forward about the revenues needed to expand and accelerate implementation.

But this is something that is realistic based on the commitments and the resources available through the end of the levy.

The bicycle master plan is highly, highly leveraged.

A lot of the projects are very tightly coordinated with other investments that are going on within the city.

to deal with curb ramps, to deal with other projects.

That's where we are able to achieve as much as we are with the budget that we have already.

It's coordinated with paving projects, it's coordinated with Vision Zero projects, it's coordinated with all sorts of things that are already going on, that are already investments so that the bike program is not the sole source of the investments in the Bicycle Master Plan implementation.

That said, That also constrains us a little bit, because the projects are highly coordinated with the other investments that are going on in the city.

So we didn't feel it was appropriate to, or it was like the timing was right to have a revenue discussion in the time between when we were going from a draft to a final.

But that's something absolutely, as we talk about transportation revenues overall, we're committed to.

And in terms of, I share the importance of delivering on the commitments that we make.

Amanda.

Yeah, I just wanted to say one quick, well, ask a quick question actually.

I know that the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee wrote a letter on May 7th to the mayor's office and SDOT inviting a conversation about readjusting levy funds as the bike budget was the hardest cut.

And I don't know if that's something that SDOT has entertained or gone to the levy oversight committee to discuss with them.

Yeah, so I think that's a good question and an ongoing discussion.

You know, there was an effort last year to reset commitments on the levy in terms of what was available and achievable within the levy timeframe.

Frankly, those are still a lot, that's a lot of lift for us to deliver the commitments that we've already made around the whole of the levy deliverables.

So I think that is an ongoing discussion that we can and will have with the Levy Oversight Committee.

But it's not something that happens quite as fast, especially given the amount of work that went into the levy reset last year and sort of where we were on the bicycle master plan implementation plan.

So we can continue to have that discussion with the Oversight Committee.

Amanda, I appreciate you bringing that up because I think that's a piece of the important overall trajectory.

I don't believe there were financial cuts to the bike program in the levy oversight, but there were programmatic cuts because just projects that had been some form or another committed to in the levy.

When the reset happened, there just wasn't the funding to do those.

And when you look at all the different pieces, all very important, it did feel like the bicycle program was one that suffered the most.

Again, I don't think it was targeted, necessarily.

It was just that that's the way it played out.

But there is a sense from that letter of, are there things we can do to lift up that boat back to where it was?

And some of the things, we can talk about new revenue sources.

There are there are other projects within the levy or programs within the levy that may have surpluses or projects that may be coming in under budget and You know, they may be in slightly different buckets, you know Maybe there's paving projects that are doing better or a major bridge project or overpass project I think I would certainly be very interested in entertaining It may require council action to shift some of the funding to try to raise the boats So they're all kind of back on a level playing field

Yeah, I think, you know, the levy is a nine-year, $930 million program that we're trying to balance across a whole 30 different programs across that we are working to deliver.

And I think it is an ongoing thing.

You know, there was no money moved away from bike programs.

It's really a question of what was promised originally and then what delivery has turned into, especially in terms of, I think, also our commitment and the demands on us to make safe, protected infrastructure, and that has ended up costing us more in a lot of cases than was originally planned.

And I think that's where we're happy to have that discussion.

I think there are also still projects and programs within the levy that are challenges to achieve and deliver.

And so I think that it's just an ongoing conversation.

Jim or Sam or Monica, we let you get almost all the way through your presentation, and then we just couldn't resist with two slides to go.

There's not a ton substantive yet, but if you want to show the last slide.

is to wrap up the presentation.

And then in July, we are going to continue and make a big push in our Center City Bike Network outreach.

And in August, construction begins on the CCBN projects.

So that'll be really exciting, I think, for us and a lot of people here today and listening as well.

And that wraps it up.

I have a few more comments, but Emily and Amanda, do you have any other overarching comments or specific things you want to add?

Sure, the board really wanted to express their gratitude to SDOT.

I know this was a really big effort, including working with the Department of Neighborhoods and getting this turned around incredibly quickly.

We are also really happy to see that there are some things in the final plan that reflect some of the prioritization that we had talked about originally and then after the draft was released.

One of our main concerns is the category of the study areas and the pre-planning.

And so I think the three study area corridors that provide access to South Seattle are some of the board's greatest priorities, and those are all under this vague category that we are not sure what controls this plan actually has on it as an accountability document because none of it is, it's not funded through design or construction.

So we would like to know a little bit more about, well a lot more really, about what that really means and what commitments this document has to those projects.

Yeah, so I'll take a quick stab at it, and it sounds like something that we should probably talk about a little bit more as we move on here.

But the idea here is that as we need to go out and seek new revenues to fund construction, we really need to get beyond just lines on the map, and we need to do some studies, we need to collect some data, and we need to know what's feasible out there so that these projects are set up for success and that we can go forward and seek grants with conceptual designs that tend to be looked upon more favorably by granting agencies than just, you know, you're simple, this is in the bike master plan.

So that's really the idea behind this concept is these projects will be advanced in the conceptual design phase and we'll have a better idea of what's possible out there and we'll start sketching out some of the details so that when those funding opportunities arise and when those grant partnerships are available, these are the projects that are you know, ready to go and, you know, a little bit past the starting line at that point.

And just to take it a step further during this whole process, we added the MLK study area.

It's going to be reviewed with the consultants hired to do the accessible Mt. Baker.

So that's ready to launch.

And then Serena, who's back from maternity leave, thank goodness, She's going to move forward with the Beacon app, so working to start that immediately.

It takes a little time to run our contracting, but just know that those two are starting.

And then we'll work for, we'll move forward with a plan to start the planning on the other ones that we haven't tied to a PM yet.

I know you're kind of like me in a very similar position.

You just got to the party.

And so I really hope that you take my comments to heart about just what the promises that are made or promises that are kept, because that's really what my long-term worry is when the levy comes for renewal.

We look for new sources of revenue that public trust may not be there.

And so if it's not there, then obviously then we're stuck at a log jam, and a log jam that is not beneficial to any of us.

And so I want to applaud the work that your department has done.

It's the work that your department has done that has really allowed me to not have a car.

And living in Northeast Seattle, I happen to be in a very transit-rich, bike-friendly part of the city, but I know that most people that look like me don't have access to those resources.

And so I want to ensure that we're doing what we can to advance it so that more folks are able to access those pathways.

In particular, I appreciate those comments.

You do live in a neighborhood that's well served, the Burke-Gilman light rail and the halls of transit, but it's not the same everywhere, like you said.

Colleagues, one of the things that I would love to work with you or that I'd entertain is idea of coming back with a resolution in the next month or so to, this is not necessarily required, but to formally kind of accept the implementation plan, if you will, and then also make some requests in there.

And I'd want to work with everyone at the table and the folks in the community, too, but some of the things that jump out for requests, one is especially looking at Southeast Seattle.

by looking at the map, my sense is that the Beacon Project, the Beacon Avenue Project, because it's a colored line on the map, there's a certain level of study and analysis that's been done, and it's probably a matter of funding and capacity to make that happen.

The MLK is extending that down to Henderson.

I think, if I hear you correctly, there's still a fair amount of work that needs to be done to know that if even It's feasible, anything's feasible to start with, but in the realm of, in the current political realm, if that's a feasible thing to do.

But those are two areas.

They both serve Southeast Seattle.

The topography is such that they're gonna likely serve pretty different markets, and so we'd really love to see, I guess my ask for you now, and hopefully in the resolution we can solidify it is, how to accelerate the analysis on that, and get those ready for when you find funding, these will be ready to go.

Those aren't the only ones.

There are other projects, but I do think a focus on Southeast Seattle.

Similarly, we've talked a lot about the downtown network.

I'm excited about getting a bunch of those projects on the ground.

Fourth Avenue remains kind of a question.

We talked a lot about that.

I don't need to go into that in too much more detail here, but we'll probably ask about that in a resolution, too.

The, you know, your reality is that there is finite funding and you can't spend money that you don't have.

And I know that you've been very clear, and the mayor has been very clear, she just doesn't want to promise spending money that she doesn't have because she wants to keep her promises, and I respect that a ton.

What I would love to do is to be able to work with the department, the mayor's office, and the community to find more revenue so we can make bigger promises and keep them.

And so a lot about what do we do and how do we prioritize those existing revenue sources.

Now I know the mayor and all of us are weighing off a bunch of needs in our community, but I do think there's gonna be some opportunities in the coming months to identify some revenue streams that I'm hoping will elevate you know, MLK if that's feasible, certainly Beacon Avenue, and also 4th Avenue, or whatever it is, as I think someone in public comment said, east of 3rd Avenue, so whether that's 4th or 5th or 6th or wherever that is, to have connections in both directions to make those connections would be really important.

And so the other thing I'll just mention is that I know that you're your organization is strained.

We're just talking about one aspect of it, but there's a number of aspects of it.

And so I would love your thought as we work towards budget this year on how to make sure we're building capacity within the organization so that if we want to add another one or two major projects on this list each year, I don't want to be here a year from now.

Well, I won't be here a year from now.

But someone to be here and say, hey, we came up with $10 million.

It's like, that's great, but I can't actually spend it because my planning department's too strained.

I don't have the office space to hire planning folks.

So what are the maybe smaller things that we can be doing to set us up so that at the end of this plan, some of these things that are on the planning list are actually on the ground and being delivered.

And that's something that we're going to have to coordinate on that.

And I realize you probably have a long list of asks.

The mayor, I'm sure, would love to grant all those, but she's going to hear a lot of asks from a lot of places, too.

And so there's a budget process, and we work our way through that.

But I'm going to really want to hear what we can do in this budget to bolster the resources of SDOT so they're prepared to accept more revenue when we or future councils go out and find that.

Colleagues, you opened to the resolution concept.

I don't know if you have anything else, any points you want to add.

I can drone on forever, but I won't keep going at this point.

Emily or Amanda, anything else you want to add to this?

I'll certainly be looking for your input as we move forward.

We, I think we would love to see a resolution like that.

You know, we were talking earlier that while it's definitely not perfect and there are things that we don't like, if everything in this plan, including everything that's on the planning list could be built, it would be a plan that we would be proud of.

So remind, do you all meet the first week of the month?

First Wednesday, so July 3rd.

Okay, so that's going to be a little tight, but maybe what we'll try and do by mid-July, get you a resolution in concept for your feedback at your August meeting, and then we can look at an early August adoption.

Again, the formal adoption of the resolution is really a mere technicality.

The more information we get out there and the more we're sharing that and giving SDOT feedback, you don't have to wait for us to do anything to address that, but we'll work on that.

And SDOT will want your of coordination on that.

We're going to push, just like people internally are pushing, but want to make sure we're being realistic, too.

Great.

I really appreciate this.

It's been an exciting couple months.

Thanks for the work you're doing, and it'll be exciting next couple of months, too.

Thank you all so much.

Colleagues, unless there's anything else on this lovely day, I am going to adjourn the meeting.

Thanks, everybody.