Seattle City Council Land Use Committee Special Meeting - Public Hearing - 6/26/23

I'm Dan Strauss chair of the committee.

Councilmember Mosqueda is excused.

Chair Strauss present for present.

Thank you.

We have one item on the agenda today.

It's Council Bill 120582 briefing discussion public hearing and possible vote on equitable development zoning.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

For reference, why are we having a special meeting on Monday morning at 9.30?

Originally as part of our land use schedule for this year with everything that we've been doing with trees and industrial maritime, we were intending to have a number of public hearings today.

They were not issued.

The notification was not issued in time.

And so we will be having another meeting on July 6th.

This should be a quick meeting today.

Since the only item on the agenda today is a public hearing, we are going to skip public comment because the only item today is the public hearing.

And before we begin moving through the agenda, Council Member Peterson, would you like to introduce our guests today?

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

Really appreciate the opportunity to welcome kindergartners from Bryan Elementary School from District 4. They made it all the way down here to City Hall.

They're all wearing green shirts to celebrate the Emerald City.

and they learned a little bit about the green building that we're in here and the grass on the roof that helps stop some of the storm runoff into our pristine waters here and really appreciate them making the time and the parents and the teachers for coming down to visit their city hall.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Peterson, and students which you might not notice is that the green roof that you see is right at the window level so sometimes Councilmember Peterson and I will point at the seagulls that are watching council chambers.

Keep your eyes out.

Great to have you here.

Welcome.

Our only item on the agenda today is Council Bill 120582 Equitable Development Zoning for Briefing, Discussion, Public Hearing, and Possible Vote.

Will the clerk please read the short title into the record?

Item 1, Council Bill 120582, Equitable Development Zoning for Briefing, Discussion, Public Hearing, and Possible Vote.

Thank you.

And we were briefed in the Land Use Committee on May 24th, 2023 by Nicholas Welsh and Katie Hyma with the Office of Planning and Community Development.

They're here today.

They'll provide a brief refresher on the bill before we take the public hearing.

And so if there are no other questions, I'm gonna pass it over to Nick and Katie.

Welcome, Nick and Katie.

Okay, thank you, Council Member.

Great to be with you all again today.

We'll bring up some slides.

This is the same presentation, just for reference, that we gave back in May, as you noted, but an abridged version.

We'll just focus on some of the key points that outline the proposal that's before the Council.

First, as an intro, the purpose for this legislation is to improve the way that we regulate and support equitable development projects in the city.

Equitable development is one of the key ways that we support community and address displacement pressure in communities at high risk of displacement.

And since 2016 one of the key ways that we've done that is through funding that addresses the financial barriers that these projects face through our equitable development initiative or EDI.

But over time in conversation with many of those applicants and grantees We've found and heard about many different ways that our regulations keep holding back the potential of those projects or sometimes making it difficult for them to succeed.

That happens through our land use and our zoning rules in part because we have limits on where certain uses are allowed, how much development is allowed.

The permitting process requires payment of fees and has certain requirements, process requirements that can be complex.

These can add to delay or uncertainty for projects.

And the whole system of development and acquiring a site, moving a project through the permitting process requires specialized expertise that many community organizations don't have because it's not the focus of their mission.

So in total, the permitting process we've heard can be complex, it can be costly, uncertain, and that's especially true for community organizations often led by and serving BIPOC communities who are undertaking development for the first time.

So for a couple years now, we've had this effort that we're calling equitable development zoning that is trying to align our land use policy more closely with our EDI goals.

And that's by removing barriers that those projects face in city regulations and city process to help them be successful, providing more resources and support to help them access information, be participants in the development process, and over time start to shift our development policy so it's more supportive of these goals.

and the outcomes these projects provide.

We have a few strategies that we're pursuing.

Some are shorter term, some are longer term.

We'll focus today on the one in the middle, near term legislation that removes some of the code barriers that EDI projects are facing right now.

We've also added permitting support in the Department of Construction and Infections.

And longer term, we're eager to explore some ways that we might be able to further support equitable development projects through something like a bonus program where projects meeting certain criteria could unlock additional height and floor area and have an advantage and opportunity to be successful in that way.

So this is a summary of the proposal that the Council is considering today.

It removes certain regulatory barriers that some past and ongoing EDI stakeholders have identified.

It would allow community centers and libraries as two types of institutions that we would permit outright in our neighborhood residential zones.

It would modify parking requirements for those uses.

It would define a new type of institution called a community farm and would allow those uses in neighborhood residential zones.

It would make a small definition change for a community club or community center to help align that definition a little more closely with what EDI projects include.

It would allow community centers to have small accessory commercial uses to help support the organizations that run those community centers, which are nonprofits.

And then in our low rise zones, it would harmonize the setback requirements for institutions with the setbacks for other uses.

One thing to note here is what this proposal doesn't do just across the board.

It really doesn't change any development standards related to height or scale or bulk.

So it's not allowing any new development of a different type or scale than could be allowed today.

It's mostly changing where and through what process those types of institutions have to go through.

So first, we'll give a little bit of detail of each of these six changes.

First is allowing community centers and libraries outright in neighborhood residential zones.

The problem that this addresses is that today, in our neighborhood residential zones, certain institutions that are allowed are allowed only as conditional uses.

And that means they have to go through certain extra permitting review, conditional or discretionary review process, and they have other requirements that other uses that are permitted outright aren't subject to, like a dispersion requirement that limits the sites where they are allowed, and additional setback requirements.

So the total of this is that if an EDI organization is proposing this type of use, and frequently what they're proposing gets classified as a community center, they face this additional process that adds time, it adds cost, and uncertainty for the applicant.

So the proposal would be to allow community centers and libraries outright in neighborhood residential zones.

They would not require a conditional use review.

Community centers that include any shelter services as part of the city's homelessness response, those would continue to have a conditional use requirement.

There's no change there.

And this is helpful because the process then for equitable development organizations that might be proposing this would be much more straightforward.

They'd have more predictability.

more ability to acquire sites in these zones and flexibility for how they can use those properties.

The second change would be modifying the amount of off-street parking that is required for community centers and libraries.

We've talked with a lot of organizations and have heard that the requirements we have today on the books are onerous, and they also exceed the actual need that these organizations have for off-street parking, given their programming and their activities.

What that means is when a new one is created, a lot of parking is required.

Typically, this is surface parking.

It's not in a garage or underground, given the cost of that type of construction.

And so that eats into the limited site area that these organizations have.

It can sort of preclude using that site area for other things like outdoor activity spaces, gardens, other sort of amenity areas.

And in turn, it increases impervious surface, which is also not good from an environmental standpoint.

So through that research, we've proposed an amended set of parking standards that you can see on the screen basically would sort of trim some of the additional layers of requirement that stack on top of each other and end up kind of adding up to a pretty large total amount of parking that would be required.

Of course, this is a minimum.

So in some cases, a project could certainly elect to provide more if they need it.

But this would sort of right size the requirement and organizations could use more of their finite land to go towards community serving activities, rather than storing vehicles.

The third thing is to modify the definition of community club or center, so this is an umbrella definition within which we have definitions for community club and for community center, but the first level of definition.

provide kind of the overall framework for what this type of institution is and what it means.

Again, this is relevant to equitable development because many organizations funded through EDI have, as part of their project, one or more uses that get permitted as a community center.

It might be a community gathering space, some other sort of civic or cultural use.

The definition, as you can read today, would be amended and sort of supplemented with the language that's underlined I'll just read it out.

Community club or center means an institution used for athletic, social, civic, cultural, artistic, or recreational purposes, operated by a nonprofit organization, and open to the general public on an equal basis.

Activities in a community club or center may include, but are not limited to, classes and events sponsored by nonprofit organizations, community programs for the elderly, social gatherings, educational programming, gardens, and art exhibits.

Again, I'll just emphasize a key criterion in this definition is that a community Center, which is the Institute and we're amending with these changes here must be operated by a nonprofit so any organization that may.

Use sort of benefit from some of the streamlined changes we're making in this proposal would have to be a nonprofit and that would continue into the future, even if that property were to transact and change hands over time.

Fourth is defining and providing standards for a new type of institution called a community farm.

The problem this addresses is that right now we have several different definitions in the code and relevant sections with development standards that address agriculture and farming uses in one way or the other, but none of them is perfectly suited or is very well suited to the types of community oriented agriculture projects that EDI stakeholders are currently providing or pursuing.

So adding a new definition for community farm would help give them a straightforward pathway and a definition that matches what they're trying to do.

It would allow that use that type of institution outright in neighborhood residential zones.

So again, we'll read the definition for everyone's benefit.

A community farm means an institution operated by a nonprofit organization.

in which land and related structures are primarily used to grow or harvest plants for food, educational, cultural, or ecological restoration purposes, or to keep animals in accordance with Section 2342052. Additional activities may include, but are not limited to, indoor and outdoor classes and events, food processing and preparation, community programs and gatherings, and the sale of plants, harvested or prepared food, ornamental crops, and animal products such as eggs or honey, but not including the slaughtering of animals or birds for meat.

So it's a comprehensive definition, but it aligns closely with several EDI organizations that are providing this type of community service right now.

They're trying to improve health and food access outcomes.

This would unlock a lot more sites for them to potentially do that work throughout the city.

Obviously, it's a low intensity type of development that is very helpful and including some organizations that right now are really struggling to find or hold on to their property would benefit from this.

Fifth is allowing community centers to include certain accessory commercial uses.

Right now, community organizations that operate a community center as the type of institution are not allowed to include any commercial space as part of the programming of that use.

In mixed-use zones, that's really not an issue because commercial uses are allowed and so they can have a combination of uses.

But in residential zones and in neighborhood residential zones in particular, commercial uses aren't allowed.

Organizations that might want to have a small cafe or small kitchen or some retail space to sell things that are made by community members or made by the organization are not able to do so.

Those uses can not only provide a different community service and help you know, extend some more variety of uses into our residential areas, but it can also provide revenue that helps those nonprofit organizations sustain themselves and thrive.

So there'd be an addition to the definition of community center.

I'll read the part that's added.

A community center may include...

Nick, I don't think you need to read the definition.

I appreciate you there.

All right, good.

Yeah, you all can read them.

Thank you.

We'll try to be quick.

So this flexibility would help those organizations you know, expand their programming to support the organization, create small spaces that entrepreneurs could take advantage of.

It's worth, again, underscoring the word accessory is really important here.

An accessory commercial use means that it is incidental to the principal use, which would be a community center.

It has to be related to the community center, so it has to have some nexus to the community center and the nonprofit that runs it.

So there'd be sort of a size and a relationship component that would get reviewed through the permitting process if such a use were proposed.

Council Member Nelson.

And this is basically commercial uses in a neighborhood, or we pretty much already allowed that with the neighborhood business legislation, correct?

So this would not be in conflict at all.

It would, in fact, it would just be allowing for commercial use, but by a nonprofit instead of a for profit.

Is that correct?

I think that's right, we would want to compare to that past legislation to really, you know, nail down the details but I think certainly it's in line with that move that the city has taken gradually over time to allow a little more flexibility in those areas of the city, provide services for community members.

That's right.

Thank you.

Thanks for that Nelson.

So our, our last sort of component of the proposal here is one that actually applies in our low rise multifamily zone.

So most of what we were talking about was our neighborhood residential zones.

This is something that would be in our low rise zones.

There aren't as many limitations already on institutions in LR zones.

But one is that they those uses.

And again, we're talking about community centers libraries and other institutions.

they have to meet additional setback requirements.

So a distance from the property line that any development has to observe that go beyond what we require for other uses, principally housing in those zones.

And so on small sites and low rise zones have a lot of relatively small compact sites.

Those standards can really limit where an institution could be developed.

And they add complexity too, because you may be using or reusing part of an existing structure.

It just creates more sort of different standards in the code, we have a pretty simple, simple amendment proposed here to the section that you see on the screen where those setbacks for institutions are established.

And it would provide consistent setbacks for institutions and other uses that are permitted outright in low rise zone so it's not allowing anything bigger or closer to neighboring properties than we would allow for housing, but if someone is doing a.

a community center type of use, for example, they would be able to follow those same setback requirements.

Thank you, Nick.

And if you wanna slide back to slide nine, also IT, I'm seeing that both Patricia and John Gouge and Colleen McClure are not present on our call-in sheet.

So Patricia, John, Colleen, we have them present.

Thank you, that is very helpful.

Sorry, Nick, when I was looking on the slide deck posted to the agenda today, slide nine was the overview of all.

Was this a new slide deck?

No, same slide deck.

We hid a couple that we had presented last time that added more context than we went through today.

Okay.

Let's make sure that we connect before committee meetings.

I know I connected with Katie and we discussed some of this.

Always important to connect before committee.

With this slide seven, we have all six of the changes that are being proposed by Office of Planning and Community Development.

I want to take this time, colleagues, are there questions?

This is the second time we've had this presentation in committee.

It seems to be that these are all very minor and almost technical changes that want to open the floor to colleagues' questions and comments.

Council Member Rouse.

Thank you.

I don't have questions but I do want to give huge appreciation to the EDI team and OPCD, and to the EDI board and stakeholders that you've been talking through these projects with.

I'm really excited.

to understand that we know that there have been challenges with this program, as important as it is, and as much as we want to make sure that we're advancing the vision of really implementing this as an anti-racist, anti-displacement strategy, we know there have been challenges along the way.

So I really appreciate the time that you've taken to meet with people to understand some of the details of what's been kind of the barriers that have been they've been facing and your attempt to resolve them here.

I think these are going to go a really long way toward creating the kind of vibrant neighborhoods with commercial opportunities that we've been talking about.

And whether it's cultural space or food access or education space, these are the kind of projects, the kind of services that our community members have been asking for in their neighborhood, within walking distance to where they live so that they can access things more easily.

So I'm excited about this.

And I just want to express my excitement about one thing in particular, which is the inclusion of a definition for community farm.

I think colleagues know I spent 10 years as a food systems consultant working previously with the city but also with these community organizations who are trying to understand how to increase access to fresh local healthy food, how to increase food security.

But this definition also allows for the opportunity for small scale food manufacturing and really plugging a hole in our local food economy that gives people the opportunity to not just learn how food is grown, but how to manufacture products.

And there are a lot of organizations across the country that use this sort of accessory use as a social enterprise for their nonprofit.

For example, in LA, there's a group called Homeboy Industries that started as a reentry program for young people who are coming out of jail and turned it into a bakery and cafe that has grown tremendously over the last few, probably the last decade.

But it's a really important starter for us in the city to allow for that kind of small-scale food production that could really create huge opportunity for people throughout the city.

Thank you for including that.

I'm excited about that and look forward to working on this and to continuing to work with the EDI team on whatever this next long term phase two might be.

And excited about that bonus density bonus thing, which, as you know, is something that my office has been working on.

So look forward to a possible partnership there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Morales, and we will have time to speak to the underlying bill in just a moment after the public hearing.

Are there any other questions for Nick and Katie right now?

I'm not seeing any other questions.

Nick and Katie, if you could hang on, we're going to do the public hearing and then we will come back to you in case there are any final questions after we receive public testimony.

Seeing as we have no further questions before the public hearing, clerk, will you please play our video?

Hello, Seattle.

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

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

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

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At that time, you must press star six.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public comment period is now open.

And we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

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

Thank you, Seattle.

Thank you.

And the public hearing on Council Bill one two zero five eight two is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

We have three speakers, Patricia Gouge, John Gouge and Colleen McClure.

Patricia, you're up first.

We have two minutes per speaker today.

Welcome, Patricia, I see you're off mute at your convenience.

You might be on mute on your own phone.

Or if you're using- Thank you very much.

There you are.

There we go.

Okay.

My name is Patricia Gouge.

I'm here to address the bill that you're discussing.

And I think that so many of the ideas on the bill are such a good idea, but I want to point out one problem area.

I understand that the category game courts are specifically allowed in the bill, and I'd like to offer my experience in why this is a very bad idea.

Our family lives next to a fairly new installation of a pickleball court that was partially funded by private fundraising and approved without neighbor input.

I feel this was an abdication of responsibility on part of the city, and I'd like to speak up to make sure the land use committee knows that there's a real cost associated with improper court placement, I'd like to make sure that there are no more courts placed near homes or apartments.

Since the time of the court installation here, those of us who live next to the park have been terribly affected by the awful noise of pickleball.

Pickleball can start as early as six o'clock in the morning and continue through the day until 10 o'clock at night.

We also have had an overnight noise problem sometimes.

Parks and Rec is working with us to try to mitigate the problems.

They've reduced, they've eliminated the overnight lighting in the park to chase the pickleball players away.

We appreciate their efforts.

They're also now looking into the installation of acoustic fencing to reduce that awful noise.

And I'd like to point out that the retrofit of these noise problems is likely to be costly.

And those costs are not being funded by the private fundraising.

These are unintended consequences.

There are many studies of the noise, and many studies recommend that the distance is the only real solution to the problem.

Many lawsuits have been successfully fought regarding court placement.

Thank you, Patricia.

And feel free to send in any additional written comments.

Up next is John, followed by Colleen.

John, I see you're here.

Star six to unmute.

There you are.

Welcome.

Hello.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

We'll start the timer whenever you start talking.

We're glad to have you here.

Good morning, my name is john good.

I wanted to elaborate on more that was Patricia, my wife was saying, I'm speaking to you as a 74 year old retired Laurelhurst neighbor living 115 feet from the recently installed pickleball court has been a difficult year for us adjusting to the new court.

The noise permeates into our house, I cannot find a room in our house where I can get away from it.

In the spring, summer and fall play can start at 7am or earlier and go through the day into the evening.

I recorded play for five minutes and there were 78 pickleball whacks with pauses between paddle and ball.

Potentially 1,000 contacts an hour and potentially 15 hours a day of play in the summer equals 15,000 loud whacks a day.

Sometimes there are over 10 players in the court and there was a lot of loud shouting and sometimes profanity.

Our next door neighbors have small children.

At 115 feet or even under 400 feet, In other situations from the court, I find it hard to enjoy basic living.

We keep the doors closed when I can, but with summer and no air conditioning, we must open our doors.

Our neighborhoods was taken by surprise with a small improvement project one and a half years ago.

The president of the Pickleball Association posted on neighborhood blog that neighbor input was not needed to convert the practice court into a pickleball court.

as quote, there is no change to the structure of the court or impact on how it's currently being used.

I disagree.

The noise has made an impact.

Noise has to be taken under consideration on future projects.

We have a lovely backyard and we have enjoyed living here for 21 years, but now we feel limited in our ability to enjoy what was at one time peace and quiet.

Again, emphasis on noise and please.

Thank you, John.

You've got a couple more seconds if you've got anything to wrap up with.

Give him 10 more seconds.

Did you have any final remarks, John?

No.

Well, thank you for calling in today.

We're going to move on to our next speaker, Colleen McClear.

Colleen, welcome.

Not quite seeing you yet.

There you are.

Star six to unmute.

See you there.

Good morning, Colleen.

Good morning, Council.

And I'm the trifecta, Colleen McAleer, representing Longhurst Community Club Council with over 5,000 residents.

And John and Patricia are just an example of two that you heard from today.

So in the legislation, we totally support the city's equity development initiative to fund grant funds for BIPOC organizations to construct the projects and support their communities.

But the red flag about the game courts actually needs to be addressed with an amendment.

especially with setbacks that was 20 feet or less.

And now perhaps with outdoor plans, game courts, they have no review at all.

So with the popularity of pickleball throughout the city, there's many, many retrofitted courts and courts located way.

14 hours of play has caused deafening noises at the range of 80 to 160 decibels at a hundred feet away.

It's three times the noise of any other sport.

And the pitch carries up to 350 feet away to nearby residences who can no longer enjoy their outdoor spaces, especially when they have to keep their windows open.

National Safety and Occupation Board states that hearing loss can occur at 90 decibels or higher at eight hours a day.

So this will happen in the BIPOC communities who have very likely have less air conditioning will have to keep their windows open.

So Seattle Parks and Rec have had numerous complaints and there's been 30 cities across the country.

So we just asked that the legislation put in a maximum decibel limit of 50 on the game courts located near residences of all types and require them to be evaluated for nuisance noise before any permission is granted to install them.

So it may be still a conditional use.

Thanks for considering it.

We think this is going to help everybody in the city and we sure don't want them to go through what folks have been through in our neighborhood.

Thank you, Colleen.

And seeing as we have no further public hearing registrants remotely or physically present.

We will close the public hearing on Council Bill 120582. Now colleagues, I had mentioned at the start of this meeting, we had intended to have a number of public hearings today to then vote on them on Wednesday because of this slip in the schedule and my apologies for this.

I'm hoping that we can vote this bill out today so that we can continue moving forward in the other committee meetings where we have to take up time that would have been otherwise allocated to today.

Colleagues, are there any concerns with suspending the rules to vote on the bill on the same day as the public hearing?

I'm not seeing any, so I'm gonna read the correct words.

If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on Council Bill 120582 on the same day as the public hearing.

Hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended.

Colleagues, is there any further discussion before we vote?

Does anyone want to speak to the base of this bill?

It seems like everyone has shared their thoughts.

Council Member Morales, you had some good thoughts to share, and I appreciate everything you said.

With that, if there's no further discussion, I am going to move to adopt Council Bill 120582. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Council Bill 120582. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Morales?

Yes.

Chair Strauss.

Yes.

Four in favor.

Thank you.

Council Bill 120582 passes.

This item will be back before the full council on July 5th, 2023 for final vote.

And with that, I know we have the regularly scheduled land use committee this Wednesday, and this now concludes the Monday, June 22nd, 26th, 2023 special land use committee meeting.

We will see you on Wednesday.

Thank you for attending.

We are adjourned.

Bye, Katie.

Bye, Nick.

Thank you, Naomi.

Recording stopped.