Good afternoon.
This is a September 24, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.
We'll now come to order.
It is 12.12 PM, and I am Abel Pacheco, chair of the committee.
We have four items on the agenda today, a discussion and possible vote on Resolution 31904, updating the City Council's position on the second bascule bridge in Montlake, a briefing and discussion and possible vote on Clerk File 314365, a contract rezone of 5256 Rainier Avenue South, a briefing from the Seattle Green Partnership on restoring neighborhood forested parks in natural areas, and a briefing from the Micromobility Coalition on benefits of micromobility to job access.
Before we begin, I just want to clarify, I heard that, I understand that Lime sent out an incorrect notification to many of its users yesterday claiming that SDOT would be unveiling its scooter plan today.
While we previously invited SDOT to update us on their work at this meeting, there was never an item on our agenda today.
We would like to still welcome public comment from anyone who is here to speak about scooters today, but we will not be joined by SDOT at this meeting.
As a big supporter of scooters myself, I'm hopeful that Estelle will be moving forward with scooters in the coming months and want to thank everyone who came out to show their support as well.
This is the final PLUS meeting scheduled before we kick off our budget process.
Before we begin, if there's no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.
At this time, we will take public comment on items that appear on today's agenda.
We have 10 minutes for public comment.
Item two, the contract rezone is being considered under the council's quasi-judicial rules, which limit our consideration to a record compiled by the hearing examiner.
This means that the public cannot comment on item number two.
Speakers are limited to two minutes.
After two minutes, I will be asking you to please wrap up so that we can go through our list of speakers.
As a reminder, public comment is only limited to the items within the agenda and the purview of this committee.
First on our list is Hans Kiel, followed by Dennis Shaw.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
My name is Hans Kiel.
about half a kilometer away from the current Montlake Bridge.
I have a family of four.
I have an eight-year-old, a one-year-old, and myself.
We're heavy users of the bridge by car and by public transit as well.
We go across it walking, running, biking about 20 times a week.
So we're very heavy users.
And as far as the second bascule bridge, I'll say there's two main rationales I've seen for that bridge.
One has to deal with congestion, and the other has to deal with safety.
I'd like to address both.
As far as congestion, Motor vehicle congestion will not be impacted positively by the second bascule bridge.
And that's pretty common sense because the north-south roadway on either side of it won't be increased.
So there are traffic studies that show that there is no positive impact on motor vehicles.
Congestion as far as pedestrians and bicyclists, I use the bridge very frequently and I don't see it.
I never see more than 10 people on the bridge.
I have to say, that to me doesn't seem like justification for another bridge.
which moves me to safety because I'm an eight-year-old who rides a bike, and we bike across the bridge, and it is not safe the way it is currently constructed.
But the main issues as far as safety have to do with infrastructure on the existing bridge.
You could put rail on the bridge, you could have directional different directions on either side of the bridge.
And there are many other solutions that we could brainstorm together that would not require a second bascule bridge.
So I ask, let us get more data.
That is just anecdotal.
I recognize there must be quantitative data.
Before we change our position as a city, as far as the bridge goes, the second bascule bridge, let's get more data about congestion.
Let's understand how much true congestion there is.
Let's make safety improvements on the existing bridge.
The serious accidents that have occurred so far on that bridge for which the city has paid out substantial amounts of money, have been due to poor maintenance and not because of congestion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you.
Next is Dennis Shaw followed by Thomas DeBise.
This one works too.
Hi, I'm Dennis Shaw.
I also live in Montlake just south of the 520 I just want to make comment as far as but it's only anecdotal but I'm a daily commuter by bicycle across the bridge and I also use it recreationally and such and I don't see a congestion situation that I've experienced that would warrant the money that would go to building a a new bridge in that area, and I think as far as using the money more effectively in other areas.
So I would like to also advocate seeing data as far as what's going to be accomplished with that.
Furthermore, with respect to the traffic, again, I've been following this for years, and as I understand and look as far as just observationally, the congestion point is the capacity of the freeway system adjacent to this.
There's been studies from back saying I-5 is full.
It doesn't matter if you make a bigger connection to it, it's full.
520 during those congested periods is also full.
It doesn't matter if you make a wider parking lot on the way to it, it's still full at that point in time.
So I would advocate from that standpoint, I'm glad the city is thinking and looking into this from the standpoint that WSDOT tends to just walk over people as far as they have their public comment meetings and go out and do what they want.
So it would be, I would like to see the city be involved in that, but I would like to see the city do that with data.
And if we're just doing it with anecdotal, I have lots of anecdotal experience that doesn't suggest that a second bridge would be warranted at this point in time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Thomas DeBise, followed by Jonathan Dubman.
Thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yep.
My name is Tom DeBuise and I live nearby the bridge on Shelby Street.
I have been a runner.
I am a bicyclist.
And I want to make several points.
And one is the issue, the main issue is whether today, as I understand it, is whether fast-tracking a decision to build a $60 to $80 million or so bridge is warranted, whether it's warranted having the hardcore facts to support it.
Does it have the hardcore facts?
Have there been any studies, recent studies since 2012 that would support building another bridge?
So much of the focus has been on bicyclists and pedestrians, what I read, and of course also the buses.
But the first question is, is there a need for it?
Is there a need for it at this time?
It's more specifically, are the facts there, the hardcore facts, in a report, a new report, do they support it?
Have people gone out there to study the bridge, to study the traffic on the bridge, to study the pedestrians and the bicyclists on the bridge to determine that?
The other thing is, which hasn't been totally addressed, is on the other side of the bridge, the north side going towards the university.
One of the basis for the 2012 or maybe 2006 study by the city was it would not improve any traffic because you have to stop there at that intersection on the north part of the bridge right after you go there.
It's a big three-way intersection, almost four-way with the light rail.
So if you can't go by there, and University of Washington at that time was adamant that they did not want to expand or allow that piece of work of a road from that intersection down to University of Village to be expanded.
I'm going to ask you please to wrap up.
All right.
I will go ahead and wrap up.
But it's too early for anyone to fast track this.
It needs to have proper studies to really support it.
And I've ridden the bridge, and I've studied it, and I agree with the gentleman before me that there's not a need to it at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Jonathan Dubman, followed by Megan McHale.
Hi, thank you.
My name is Jonathan Dubman, and I'm coming out of retirement, having spent about 15 years of my life working on this project, as Councilmember O'Brien is well aware, as well as others in the room I've gotten to know over the years.
I am here today to plead that we not build a second bascule bridge for additional vehicles across the Montlake Cut, which will not help transit, which will despoil this landscape, which will waste $100 million of public funds on infrastructure that will never pay back its carbon footprint, that the city was wise enough in 2015 to pass a resolution concerning with an enormous public input over a period of many, many years that is extremely nuanced and deserves a careful rereading not a discarding of the key points which remain.
The resolution from 2015 says the city supports additional bicycle and pedestrian capacity in the Montlake Corridor, but But the bicycle-pedestrian bridge was seen as sufficient.
It was seen as unhelpful to transit performance, to transit speed and reliability, to add the second drawbridge there.
There was a queue jump on either side of the bridge, allowing HOVs in the additional Allowing additional HOVs across the Montlake cut will burden intersections on either side of the cut that are already overcapacity, will make the traffic worse in this area, not better.
And this is an extremely nuanced issue that has some counterintuitive results with traffic.
It takes a while to get up to speed.
We need a new round of public process around how is the best way to spend these already raised state funds in this new era.
that reflects our current priorities and our current needs, and not a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.
It would be very ironic if just days after the biggest youth climate march in world history, we take a step to despoil our own landscape that will never pay itself back.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Megan McCurrow, followed by Lisa Valdez.
Hello.
Hello.
I live in Montlake, about a half mile south of the bridge, and I use the bridge every single day.
I'm usually walking or biking across it.
Every single time, no matter how much of a hurry I'm in, I stop and I admire the view.
because there are so few places in Seattle that really remind me of Seattle, the Seattle of 20, 30 years or more ago.
I really urge that we seriously consider our plans with this bridge and consider what it represents to everyone, people who live here around the bridge, but also people who have connections to Seattle and see the bridge as something much more than just a bridge.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Lisa Valdez followed by Warren Wilder.
I'm Lisa Valdez.
I'm a relatively new neighbor to the Montlake area.
I live right next to the bridge at 2907 Montlake, so it is my neighbor.
I love this bridge, and that's one of the reasons that we moved here, because we just thought it was so beautiful.
And then I just found out about what's happening, so I came here actually to ask a lot of questions.
I'm trying to find out what actually is being voted on today, what it is that the plans are.
I haven't even seen a picture yet of what this new bridge is going to be, except for an old one from 2012, which has a lot of aesthetic concerns for me.
I have a lot of the same concerns as the people who came previously about what's going to actually happen with congestion.
Is it actually going to change congestion?
So I'd really like to find out these answers before we actually make any, you know, real big decisions at this time.
I also, like the lady who's in front of me, the aesthetics of that bridge, it is so beautiful.
Its history is so gorgeous.
There's green belts.
I mean, it's not green belts, but there are really old-growth trees around it.
What's going to happen to those old-growth trees?
Are we going to make this the same kind of bridge with the same beauty as the bridge that's there before if we're going to make a new bridge?
And then, of course, since I'm right next to it, I have a personal concern about noise.
It's a very noisy bridge being right next to it.
And what will be, if there is a new bridge, would you be changing the noise concerns?
Because right now it is really noisy.
Having two bridges would make it even double the noise, I would think.
And I have concerns, too, about if, you know, as a congestion and having a wider bridge is going to mean the boats have to sail a little bit longer across the bridge.
And so what will that mean for, you know, traffic congestion also, because now we have a longer wait time for the bridge to go up and down.
So just consider, I want questions answered before we make decisions.
Thank you.
When this is the second reading of the resolution, when we get to the resolution, we'll make sure that we have additional detail about what the resolution does and what the resolution states more specifically and what the process for WSDOT will be.
Okay.
All right.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I'd like to learn more about the studies.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Warren Wilder, followed by Doug McDonald.
Hi there.
My name is Warren Wilder.
I'm Lisa's neighbor.
Live just west of the bridge.
I'm new to this issue.
I've been in Seattle for over 60 years now.
I was born here.
The study that was done back in 2012 says taking current bicycle, pedestrian, transit performance, and mainline SR 520 operations into account, it's likely that a second Montlake bascule bridge would not deliver benefits, particularly to pedestrians, bicycles, and bus transit mobility that justify its cost and impact.
It's likely that greater, equal or greater improvements in performance for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit customers could otherwise be delivered at lower cost.
That was what came out of a study in the year 2012. That was reaffirmed again in 2015 The council at that time and the mayor at that time updated the city policy with regard to the Second Montlake Bascule Bridge and said the bridge is fine the way it is.
And they recommended that staff work on using the money that would otherwise be used for this bridge to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements.
So instead of wasting the money on the bridge, go ahead and use it for things that we need, which is pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
So now we get this staff memo dated September 9 of 2019 from Calvin Chow.
What's changed today?
Why are we here today?
What Mr. Chow says in his analysis is now we've built a light rail station, okay?
And now we built a bicycle lane across 520.
Mr. Walder, I will just ask that, given that I am chair of the committee, please keep all comments directed towards me and remain respectful of central staff, please.
Okay, I presume I was respectful of Mr. Chow.
I wanted to know, I was looking at his memo.
Understandably, but please just keep comments directed, if anyone, towards me.
Okay.
The memo that the staff analyst prepared, he said there's been two changes since 2015. One is we put in the new transit station.
Two, we put in the bicycle lane.
And those two changes mean we need to add another four lanes to Montlake Boulevard.
It doesn't make sense.
Why do we build these assets if we need to build more roads later?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Doug McDonald followed by Colleen McLear.
I'm Doug McDonald.
I'm going to spare Mike Deja Vu all over again and say Jonathan Doblin was right 15 years ago and we wouldn't have been here if it hadn't been for them.
I'm here on the new micro-mobility deal.
I wondered who is this organization?
I think as nearly as I can check it out, the organization that's here today is a mail drop at a Washington, D.C.
lobby and influence firm of 53 people whose name I think is called Fort Tate Partners.
I'd like to know who funds them.
I suspect that they are funded.
by people who this week have sent emails to tens of thousands of people in Seattle urging that we come here to oppose a small tax on ride share that will be used to fund affordable housing, transit services, and eventually bicycle and pedestrian paths.
And so I think it's somewhat ironic that they're here today presenting an entirely goofy report.
I mean, the report is laughable.
And any first year engineering or planning student would say this report really just hit delete.
And next, I'd like to ask a couple of other questions.
And one of them is this.
Does any of the micromobility planning that we want to see here to do scooters deal with the questions that we have no transparency from the e-scooter companies about safety?
A micro-mobility coalition perhaps could provide some of that.
Perhaps they could answer this question too.
Mr. O'Brien knows that for years in this city we have built a culture that bicyclists wear helmets.
That was a culture that had 99.9% adherence until bike share showed up.
And we then corroded the culture of bike helmet wearing in Seattle.
And we now need a scooter program with which we all would like to see well done.
And one of the things it has to have is helmets for safety.
We could get two useful things from these people today.
One is, what is your strategy?
I'll be done in a minute.
What is that strategy?
And the second strategy is, will you please give us the accident data for head injuries and brain injuries?
And finally, I'll say this.
We have a Green New Deal in Seattle.
And I'll finish in a minute.
And we should tell this fellow from Washington, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we will give him a free Orca Pass.
Mr. McDonald, I've asked you twice.
Can you please turn off the microphone?
Thank you.
Next on our list is Colleen.
Hi, I'm Colleen McAleer, and today I'm going to speak as a resident of Northeast Seattle.
We are north of the Ship Canal Bridge, so I've got a different point of view.
A few years ago, the 520 program, which I was involved with, was state mediation funded, and part of the corridor is the second bascule bridge integrated to the HOV reversible lane that goes on to I-5.
So that remains, and the state has funded that program.
Why are we changing council's view now?
What's happened since that time when the council decided that we probably wouldn't need it, but triggers would be in place?
Well, the land use policy in the city has changed tremendously, and there's a lot of growth going on.
Seattle has absorbed much more growth than the Growth Management Act has even requested.
So to that end, there's 1,303 units of new housing right within a mile of the bridge.
The new master plan for the University of Washington is going to add 6 million square feet, and Children's Hospital has added 2 million square feet of development.
That is an extra 16,000 people north of the Ship Canal who cannot get through that corridor.
So we need more buses.
The reason buses can't run is because it's not reliable.
So we need to get that corridor up and moving and we need capacity for transit, also bikers and for pedestrians safer.
We use the bridge daily too if we can get to it.
Right now, two hours in the morning, there's a backup for a mile and a half all the way to Children's Hospital sometimes.
And same with the afternoon, you better get there by 1.30 because you're going to sit in it till about quarter to six.
Cumulative effects with the University Village in addition to that.
And then the Montlake Triangle Improvement Plan cooked up by the Metro and Sound Transit is going to be bringing east side buses through the Montlake Triangle every day for their routes.
And so they will come on across the bridge and they will go back.
And this is a copy of it.
And so that's going to be a huge impact on the capacity of what's existing now in the Montlake Bridge.
So we urge council to make sure that Seattle has a place at that table when they're deciding what and if that bridge is going to look like in the future.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Next on our list is Jorgen Banner followed by Margaret Richard.
12 to 15 years ago, I was the representative of the University District Community Council on the 520 mediation.
A plurality of that panel prepared and endorsed a plan which ultimately was the subject of the environmental impact statement.
That plan called for a parallel bridge for high occupancy vehicles, for buses, for bicycles, and for pedestrians, which is very close to what you were calling for in the resolution today.
But there's something else that came up.
Today I was handed this plan for the Montlake Triangle project.
We in the University District Community Council were never consulted, never informed.
The same goes for Ravenna Bryant.
It was not informed, never consulted, nor was the City University Advisory Committee consulted and informed.
So your resolution in section two is right on the spot when it calls for consultation with the communities in Seattle on that.
Montlake right through there is a major bottleneck and it has been and we were told in the mediation that this second bridge would help solve that problem.
It won't solve it by taking this as written.
It needs to be consulted with the communities and work because that traffic light by the stadium is a major cause of the bottlenecks that go all the way up to University Village.
The bottleneck was relieved somewhat when tariffs or tolls were put in, but it still is not good.
And it will get worse as traffic expands.
So I urge you to stress to the state and to the Metro, who is one of the partners to this, that they must consult with Northeast Seattle about what should be done there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Margaret Richard, followed by Steve Rustello.
Yeah, good day, everyone.
I'm Ms. Richard here, and I think it's very important that when the constituents come down here to talk about any subject, that they should be respected.
I just, you know, I go everywhere to try to see how I can have some proper stuff done.
and in written they give us five minutes and they don't interrupt our speech and there's something unusual when people come down here to address this city council that there's always some form of sit down and wrap up or you know like somebody's retarded or something up in here and I don't agree with it and we're going to move forward we're going to do like Elizabeth Warren said we're going to attack this corruption and if it's anywhere in any of these committees this is where we're supposed to come and address it and bridges are good Just like the Edmund Pettus Bridge, it was a historical bridge.
And so it's very important for bridges to be maintained.
so that people in the cars can get across them back and forth.
And so that's a good subject that the people took time out of their day to even come down here and talk about things that are of great concern to them.
And I just, like I said, continuously am tired of being sick and tired of hearing people being treated less than a human being because they have a right and that's their constitutional right and their free speech to address government without Uh, well, yeah, with, um, well, it's retaliation without fear of retaliation.
That's what I'm trying to say.
And so I will continue to come back and to speak before these councils until I see a great change.
Because, Mr Paseko, you haven't gotten back to me on anything.
So I don't know what you're gonna do about this bridge and anything else that people bring before you.
And your time is winding up, isn't it?
Have a good day.
Thank you.
Next is Steve Rustello.
Well we hear a lot about climate change and we hear about how left-wing and green the city of Seattle is and yet we still can't get a tree ordinance.
Can't protect the major large trees that are carbon eaters.
You know I mean Again, you love the Amazon, and it's up to the Brazilians, but the Brazilians have sort of a funny idea, too.
They want economic development, and they want to cut down the Amazon, and they think some other people ought to do some things, too.
Well, in Seattle, we're not doing our share on climate.
Quite frankly, the easy things.
The trees take a long time to grow.
It's like a huge investment.
developer-approved environmentalists in Seattle are not that concerned about large investments like that.
They just simply want to avoid it.
Now, you had some hearings and you talked a bit about it, but you can't quite get to the point of putting regulations that might hurt some developers and might actually be good land-use policies because Right now, it appears it's gung-ho, all projects are great, all must go forward, and we certainly don't want to listen to the public.
Design review needs to come back as it was before, where the whole project is looked at and does it fit where it is.
We should be building a city for the future, not just making development extremely profitable.
I know the oil companies love to have seen profits.
Developers love obscene profits, but I don't think they are necessary.
Seattle has been overzoned for a very long time, and the whole idea that we can't have development without giving away the store is ludicrous.
Thank you, Mr. Repostello.
Is there anyone else who did not sign up to speak that would like to speak?
Seeing none, we will now close public comment.
Our first item of business today is discussion and possible vote on Resolution 31904 relating to a second Bascule Bridge.
Noah, would you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda item one, Resolution 31904, a resolution relating to the State Route 520 Interstate 5 to Medina Bridge replacement and high occupancy vehicle project, superseding past resolutions and making recommendations for the future configuration of a second Montlake Bascule Bridge.
This is our second committee meeting on the resolution today.
And I'm hoping to get to vote on it out of committee today.
Calvin, could you please give us a brief overview of the resolution?
Sure.
I'm Calvin Chow with council central staff.
So the resolution, uh, would, um, rescind two resolution or supersede two resolutions that were taken 2012 and 2015 that relate to the SR five twenties Montlake second basketball bridge.
The second basketball bridge is a state project, uh, that would be, uh, that would get a second drawbridge immediately adjacent to the broad bridge that's currently over the Montlake Cut.
At the time, city council and the mayor passed resolutions that said that the project is not deemed necessary for the foreseeable future and directed city policy to request that WSDOT turn those resources towards other ways of improving transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.
The resolution in front of you would supersede those resolutions and make the request that the city's policy or establish the city's policy in support of the second bicycle bridge with the idea to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit capacity while maintaining the current existing levels of general purpose traffic lanes.
So to be clear, this does not begin construction of a second bridge, correct?
That's correct.
The project WSDOT has not established a construction timeline for this project.
They have funding for it, but they have discussed it as one of the last portions of their SR 520 project.
They still have the Montlake lid that's currently under construction.
They also have the Portage Bay Bridge to be designed and built in the future as well.
So there's still a number of sub-projects related to that WSDOT project.
And with the state funding tied to the project, I assume those dollars would be lost if this project does not move forward?
It's a state budgeting process, so I wouldn't be able to opine on what the state would do.
Council Member O'Brien, do you have any questions?
I'm adamantly opposed to this resolution.
I think the 2015 resolution still speaks for what I think the city policy should be.
So I think revoking it at this time doesn't make any sense at all.
I haven't seen any specific data that would imply that we should be going in a different direction.
I think that if we wanted to shift directions, there should be a process to work through that.
I think I actually disagree with some of the language in the resolution.
I don't believe, I believe it says this resolution is consistent with our climate action plan.
I think it's actually in direct opposition to our climate action plan.
And I, you know, I don't need to go on too long here, but generally the folks that spoke in opposition of it, I think they were well-spoken and I agree with just about every point they make.
Well, Council Member O'Brien, I believe your office was given sufficient time to provide feedback, so I hope that your office would have taken the opportunity to provide the feedback.
I've been pretty clear to you, I think, all along that I'm opposed to this, so that's my feedback.
That's fine, but in terms of the language and not agreeing with the language, I believe that your office was given an opportunity to make modifications if that's how you felt.
I prefer just to not do it.
So I spend a lot of time amending something they'll be voting against.
That's fair.
So I have letters of support from the Lower Hearst Community Council as well as from the Transportation Choices Coalition as well as letters of support from urbanists with regards to the resolution in itself and feedback.
This resolution, the movement of this resolution is, as we have heard many, many times over about the growth that's gonna happen in this region, about 1.8 million new residents, 1.2 million new jobs.
As a matter of fact, I remember on May 9th, Council Member O'Brien, you gave an impassioned speech about how other cities and neighboring cities around our region needed to put more pressure on Seattle to respond to the growth, to do more for housing, for transportation.
I am trying to move that ball forward.
This is, you know, as you know, the Washington State Legislature included the funding for the second drawbridge over the Montlake Cut as part of the SR 520 Rest of the West.
In 2015's Connecting Washington Package, this bridge, the second bascule bridge, would build alongside the existing Montlake Bridge.
The last time the City of Seattle established a position on the second bascule bridge was in 2015 before the opening of the UW light rail station.
The presence of the station has increased the demand for people walking and biking in the Montlake Corridor.
My office has been engaged with the District 4 presidents during the budget town hall that I held in District 4. I did hear concerns about this and doing what we can to move the ball forward with regards to the Montlake Corridor.
In addition, King County Metro and Sound Transit now are planning to route more buses across the Montlake Cut to connect riders to the U-Link station at Husky Stadium.
The Montly bridge is one of the most used bridges in the city by pedestrians and cyclists.
WSDOT has announced that they are updating traffic forecasts and bicycle pedestrian volumes in preparation for a stakeholder engagement process in 2020. This process will review in preparation for a stakeholder engagement process in 2020. Sorry, this process renew review the new conditions with the u-link station in place the current transportation needs and potential options as those discussions begin this resolution Updates the council's position to make it clear that reliable transit and safe walking and biking are the city's priorities the proposed resolution would further request that washed out and establish opportunities for community and stakeholder outreach and input, and explore opportunities to advance the project schedule such that it coincides with other SR 520 construction phases and reduces the overall disruption in the corridor.
And quite frankly, Council Member O'Brien, as we've all, we're just witnesses to the young people who asked us to do more with regards to moving forward on actions that we can take With regards to climate change, you know, I'm disappointed because I have greatly admired and respected your positions on a number of issues and We are turning our backs on those young people.
And in my district, there are approximately 45,000 students who ask us repeatedly to do more, to do what we can to get more people out of cars, to relieve the congestion on our streets, to do what we can to get more people out of cars.
And that's why I've been a big proponent of scooters and bicycling.
And I am asking, as the Transportation Choices Coalition has outlined in their letter in support, this is providing us another opportunity to keep the ball forward, moving forward for our region.
And so I am asking it for your support to do what you can in these final months to continue advancing that position.
Council Member Chayko, I'm actually offended that you question my commitment to climate.
I think that if this was an attempt to address climate change, I would appreciate you bringing forward some actual analysis that shows that expanding our roadways is a solution to climate.
I don't believe it is.
And I think that simply stating that there was a march on Friday, which I supported, and that that means this is the right thing to do, doesn't work.
So I also want to be clear that in my read of Transportation Choices Letter, it does not state support for this resolution.
It does say, by keeping all options on the table for further discussion regarding the second Montlake Basco Bridge, Our resolution in 2015 said what we want to do, which I believe is still consistent.
WSDOT wants to build one.
Those discussions will be ongoing.
It may be that WSDOT builds it without the city's support.
But I don't see anywhere on here saying the city should pick a solution that says we adamantly We absolutely need to build a second bridge.
It says keep the options on the table, which they are.
And I think your resolution does the opposite.
I think that if you believe that this solves our problems and that things have changed, I would love to see the folks from SDOT here at the table.
explaining the analysis our transportation engineers have done and what has shifted since 2015. But I don't see them here.
I don't see any documentation from SDOT.
And if that documentation came forward and you disagreed with it, that's fair to say that we should have a different policy and bring some experts there.
But I don't think this is good policy.
I think it's absolutely, expanding a roadway capacity is not a solution to climate change.
I think if we have $100 million to invest, doing exactly what we say in our resolution for 2015, saying we should be investing in multimodal options and find other alternatives to meet the demand is the direction that I would like to go.
You know, my understanding is you asked if I would put this through my committee.
I told you a month or so ago that I don't support it, and it wouldn't come through my committee because it didn't make sense for me to chair a resolution that I didn't support just to kill it.
But if you wanted to put it through your committee, you could.
And so I'm a little dismayed that you asked.
Surprised that I'm opposed to this because I've been pretty clear all along that this is something that I'm opposed to.
I want to say, and so I'm surprised, Council Member O'Brien, but you know, you, You weren't present for the last committee meeting.
You could have been present to have those conversations with questions or follow-up questions.
You, like I, can have those conversations with SDOT in our office to address specific concerns.
So, you know, I've done my best to do the outreach to both WSDOT, SDOT, as well as a number of community stakeholders within District 4, and so, You know, with regards to expanding roadway, you know, it does improve mobility for scootering, biking, folks who have disability needs, as well as for HOV and transit.
So making it easier for people to get out of single occupancy vehicles is something that I think you and I both share, and as such is why I brought this resolution forward through the Plus Committee.
because I think it's an opportunity for us to continue to move that ball forward as a region.
Yeah, I'm happy to continue.
My position is firm here, since yours is too.
If you've had conversations with SDOT and you want to tell me what they've told you, my conversations with SDOT is that they don't think this makes sense.
But if you have a different position that you've heard in the private conversations, we haven't had a public hearing of this with SDOT.
I'd be interested in hearing that.
But again, I want to improve mobility by reallocating our existing roadways, not by expanding our roadways.
I don't think that's consistent.
I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one at the end of the day.
But I will ask this committee to vote on the amendment that the mayor's office has proposed.
Just to be clear, it just removes the concurrence line.
So all those in support of the amendment, oh, actually, is there a second?
No.
All right.
The amendment doesn't have a second.
All those in support of the resolution as is, please vote aye.
Well, there's not a second for the resolution.
Is there a second for the resolution?
No.
Resolution fails.
Our next item of business is application of the 5250 Rainier LP Rezone.
Noah, would you please read it to the record?
Agenda item two, clerk file 314365, application of 5250 Rainier LP to rezone in approximately 40,000 square foot site located at 5256 Rainier Avenue South from neighborhood commercial two with a 40 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial two with a 65 foot height limit.
We are joined by Eric McConney of Central Staff.
Eric, would you please walk us through this rezone application?
Yeah, absolutely, good afternoon.
And up there it is just catching up with you tactically.
Thank you for the for the patience.
So this rezone application, this contract rezone application, as with all rezone applications, is considered quasi-judicial.
So I'm just reminding you that the council decisions on this must be made on the record that's established by the hearing examiner.
The hearing examiner establishes that record at an open record hearing.
And that entire record, if you have any questions about it, is currently including the, I should say, including the audio recordings of the hearing are in my office.
And I'm happy to make any of those pieces available to you if you'd like.
As an overview, this contract rezone would change the zoning for approximately 18,423 square feet of land, and it's addressed at 5256 Rainier Avenue South.
We'll call that the rezone area.
And so overall, this is the surrounding area.
I put a kind of a yellow box, kind of a polygon there on site A.
And some of the information provided on the record, you see site A and site B.
That's because these projects go together.
However, site A is the project that relies on the contract rezone.
So that's just by way of clarification.
And here we move in a little closer to the site that would be subject to the contract rezone.
The Civil Department of Construction and Inspections and the hearing examiner did recommend the approval for the rezone.
The directors of the STCI, Seattle Department of Construction Inspections, recommendation also issued a SEPA determination of non-significance and recommended the conditions and the design review decision.
That's just to say that this project has been through design review.
What it would look like, all of its sort of physical characteristics have been through design review.
ultimately what we'll talk about is how the property use and development agreement that would go with the bill approving this rezone would fix this project to be in compliance with the permit that encompasses all the design review decisions.
So in August of this year, the hearing examiner issued the findings recommendation that was sent over to council and it's subject to a property use and development agreement.
And the conditions are that the provisions in the Seattle Municipal Code dealing with mandatory housing affordability will be met.
and that this project stick to all of the approved plans that are in STCI project number 3025193. And I'll just take a second and show you, this is the rezone area.
There's the four parcels.
Typically, rezones draw out to the central line of the street.
That's why you see the portion of the street.
And then here's some images from the materials on the record.
Here's a perspective looking south from the north.
I've labeled site A and site B just for convenience.
So site A is to the right of the image there.
And here's an image from the street.
And as the slide says, this is the southeast corner along Rainier Avenue looking north.
And then one more.
This is the west elevation.
So looking kind of straight on at the, the project along Rainier Avenue South.
So moving right along, if there's no questions about the project itself or the rezone, I'll just talk about some of the tactical details.
One thing that I would request that you do today, the first action would be to amend the title of the clerk file.
This happens from time to time that when the contract rezone first comes in, there may be some things that are true at that time, that change through time.
So this would have the vote and the specific languages in the memorandum that it provided would tune up this application information, the name of the applicant and rezoning from NC255M to NC265M1.
That's because the mandatory housing affordability rezone has happened since this application first came in.
And so the clerk file, as it's recorded right now, talks about moving from a 40-foot height limit or NC240.
So this is an important tune-up to the clerk file because the clerk file is the actual thing that you all will recommend.
So that would be action number one that you all could take if you choose to do so.
And I'll just keep on moving through the other steps if you like.
The next portion would be to take action on and approve the findings, conclusions, and decision document that's added to the current file, and it would grant the rezoned application.
I'm just going to note that that FC&D makes some clerical corrections to the record that was provided by the hearing examiner, and then it adopts the hearing examiner's conditions, and it would grant the reason subject to a property use and development agreement.
So that's the findings, conclusions, and decision document.
Sometimes we call it the FC&D.
And then finally, it would be just to take action to vote to recommend this rezone to full council.
If all these things happen today, then what I will do is complete the actual ordinance that makes rezone happen, work with the applicant to have the property use and development agreement signed to subject to these conditions as you approve today.
That would be attached to the ordinance that would come to full council at a later date.
So that would be the final action on this.
And those are all the details I have to share with you.
I'm happy to answer any questions you have, but that's the rundown.
How's it going, Brian?
Any questions?
Timing on this, so this process started prior to MHA being enacted.
That's right, yeah.
And so, but they continued through that process.
They got a partial up zone.
They got an up zone in MHA, but they're looking for an additional 10 feet, which is what they were asking for originally.
That's right.
And you've probably seen, Councilmember, other contract reasons that have come through, like this one, that hold to the rules of MHA.
There was an interim period, and we've seen some of these, where there's a director's rule from SDCI to clarify how to handle those, and this is hewing to that.
And so this would go from an M designation to an M1 designation?
That's correct.
Because of the extra 10 pages?
Because of that change, yeah.
Do you know the affordable housing contribution that that would require for this?
You know, I don't have that math in front of me, but I could get that for you.
OK.
OK.
Thank you.
We've had opportunities to discuss this, so I appreciate it.
Yeah.
Well, I move to amend the clerk file 314365 as shown in the central staff amendment, the central staff memo.
Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
With that taken care of, I move to adopt the findings, conclusions, and decision and recommend granting Clerk File 314365 as conditioned.
Second.
All those in favor, please vote aye.
Aye.
Okay.
Thank you, Eric.
This item will be back before the full Council in October.
Our next item of business is...
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next item of business is a presentation from Green Seattle Partnership.
Noah, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
Agenda Item 3, Green Seattle Partnership, Restoring Neighborhood Forested Parks and Natural Areas.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
I thank the committee for having us today.
My name is Patti Bakker.
I'm with Seattle Parks and Recreation, and I want to apologize.
Our deputy superintendent, Christopher Williams, had a strong conflict and needed to leave.
He was here in an attempt to join us, but he didn't need to leave.
We also have here Joanna Nelson de Flores, who was with FORTERRA, who's another of the founding partners of the Green Seattle Partnership.
And Joanna will talk a little bit about how it came to be that we're here today.
Yeah, it may seem a bit unconventional that a parks program is here at the planning...
Am I on?
I can't tell.
Is it on?
I can hear you, but I don't know if everybody else on the...
How about that?
There we go.
Now everybody.
Is there anybody left?
Okay.
It may seem a bit unconventional that...
Parks Program is reporting back to the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee, but this is a program really that is woven into the fabric of our communities, and as you all are talking a lot about rezoning density, I think it's really important for this committee to be aware of how our livable cities are connected to access to nature and healthy forests that are throughout all of our neighborhoods.
So with that, I do really appreciate you all making the time today to hear more about the Green Seattle Partnership.
Yeah, so we are pleased to be here talking with you today about this topic.
We do believe strongly that this work is making a big difference in our communities, because through this work, we are restoring and unlocking our green spaces, thereby increasing access to nature, strengthening neighborhood cohesion and creating that sense of stewardship and a relationship and connection to the land for our residents.
And in addition to these direct benefits to our human communities, the significance of this work is also compounded since we are creating healthier wildlife habitat and natural processes, healthier creeks, slopes, waterways, and therefore a healthier Puget Sound as well.
So in talking about this work, we like to start here, to zoom out a little bit, take us outside of this building, and look at the city from above.
So this photo here is looking from the south across West Seattle toward Elliott Bay and downtown.
As the committee is well aware, unprecedented growth and a changing climate are impacting our city's health.
But from this perspective, you can see this amazing asset that we have that can help alleviate those impacts, and that's our urban forest.
You can see here all the different components that make up the forest.
You see, is there a pointer?
I don't see one.
Sometimes there's one here.
Oh, you can use the mouse too.
Oh, okay.
Oh, there we go.
Got it.
Okay.
So you can see the larger forested areas.
I think the mouse works well.
Yeah.
Larger forested areas.
We've got Lincoln Park here, Meeko Mooks up to the north, the start of the West Duwamish Greenbelt, and other parks scattered throughout, as well as our thousands of street trees and vegetation in backyards and other private properties.
And so this lattice work together makes up this wonderful asset we have in our urban forest.
And so given all of that forested parkland, you can see that Parks and Recreation plays a big role in caring for our urban forest.
It fits in really well with our mission to provide welcoming and safe opportunities to play, learn, contemplate, and build community, as well as promoting responsible stewardship of our land.
And it fits in really well with our values of promoting healthy people, a healthy environment, and strong communities.
So this map here shows All the magenta and green areas are the park lands scattered throughout the city.
So we manage over 6,400 acres of land, which is 11% of the land base.
And 2,500 acres of those are in our natural areas.
And so those are slated for restoration through the Green Saddle Partnership.
And the reason that restoration is needed is because after many decades of being left mostly alone, Since they were natural areas that were considered not to need regular maintenance for a while, they became inundated and infested with invasive plant species.
So in 2005, the Seattle community, through the Green Seattle Partnership, committed to a 20-year plan to restore and activate those forested parklands with two important goals in mind.
First, to restore and maintain those parklands and natural areas, and while doing so, to engage and galvanize an informed, involved, and active community in that restoration and stewardship.
Now I wanted to pause here and explain the partnership a little bit more, because we get asked questions like, so is Green Seattle Partnership a non-profit organization?
We do maintain a .org website, so it's not immediately obvious to those just coming to it, right?
But it is a unique public-private partnership made up of city agencies, nonprofit partners, companies, and community volunteers.
And because this work takes place primarily on park lands, Parks and Recreation is the lead agency for the partnership.
And pictured here is Parks and Recreation's natural area crew, which is funded partially by the Seattle Parks District, working alongside one of our four stewards, one of our lead volunteers, along the Birkeland Trail near Thornton Creek, as an example of the mixture of entities that it takes working together to get all of this work done.
So now 20...
14 years into that 20-year timeline of restoration, we have seen a lot of successes.
There are four phases to getting this work done, starting with removal of the invasive species, then planting the native plant species, and working through establishment of those native plants, and continued maintenance to make sure that the invasives don't return.
So these are some of our statistics achieved to date.
We have almost 1,700 acres enrolled in restoration.
So those are in various phases, some of them having just been started.
and some of them having reached what we call phase four or our final healthy forest state.
We've planted more than a million plants in the ground.
Those are trees, shrubs, ground covers, and logged more than a million volunteer hours, and those range from are forest stewards, some of whom are out there several times a week, all year long, in the forest sections that they've adopted, as well as thousands of other volunteers who engage with the program with varying levels of frequency.
And because not all Acres are suitable for volunteer work.
We do engage professional crews in like steep slopes and wetlands where we can't have volunteers working.
And so we've logged more than 400,000 hours of work from those crews.
And we like to include this number here on the bottom that we call our survival rings.
That means we've cut the climbing vines away from the trees and pulled them away.
So you can think of that number as the number of trees that have been saved.
you know, over time through this program.
And then these acres here in the middle are acres mulched and weeded are, that indicates the establishment work going on and those acres that are making their way from phase one through to their final healthy forest state.
So this was a unique partnership when it started, and GSP continues to be a national leader in urban forestry.
The report pictured here was produced earlier this year by the Trust for Public Land, Yale, and a New York-based organization called the Natural Areas Conservancy.
So it's a national report on caring for our forested natural areas, and Seattle is featured significantly throughout the report and also pictured on the cover.
This photo was taken in Seward Park on Green Seattle Day just last year, 2018. So that's an indication of the national significance of this work.
And now Joanne is going to talk about some of the regional and local significance and impact of this work.
Thank you.
So Fortera got involved, we were Cascade Land Conservancy at the time, around 2005, because as we were doing, we're a regional non-profit, started out as a land trust and now evolved into a sustainability organization that secures keystone spaces, whether they're farms, forests, parks, now even dabbling in land for affordable housing.
really looking at all the pieces that a community needs to thrive and have a good quality of life.
And so back at that time when we were first starting, we recognized, OK, if people are moving into these, more people are moving into the cities, if we want to attract density to our cities, again, we need, people need to have access to nature.
They need to be able to go for a walk in the woods and not have to move out to the suburbs in order to get that.
So we partnered at the time with Seattle Parks Department, Seattle Public Utilities, and Office of Sustainability to launch this new program that really was cutting edge across the country.
There weren't a lot of cities doing this.
Soon after Seattle launched, other cities raised their hand.
They were in the same boat.
They were recognizing that their city was growing.
that they had this huge asset of land that they owned, but they hadn't really unlocked the potential or maximized the benefits that it provides to their residents.
So they recognized that if they start active forest restoration and management and care of their lands, that they could really make these areas activated and accessible for their residents.
So they turned to Green Seattle Partnership as a model and Forterra as a nonprofit partner to do the same thing.
So Forterra replicated the model in Kirkland and Tacoma, and then the word spread.
People wanted livable cities and healthy communities and recognized the need for healthy forests and access to nature.
The program remains relevant 13 years later.
It has grown enormously.
So this map represents all the cities that have gone through similar steps to Seattle.
In the past few years, we've added five cities.
And we're now working with Snohomish County to apply this model, again, that started in Seattle, to their parks and natural areas.
So there are now about 14 cities, Snohomish County, and all of those communities collectively have a goal of restoring the 13,000 acres those programs represent, and about 1.6 million residents that will benefit from that.
So while each program is customized to fit their city, they all share similar to Seattle, similar goals, similar program structures, best practices, and standardized tracking measures.
Seattle, by far, is the largest program.
And I just want you all to know that, as a leader of the pack, other green cities are looking at Seattle.
They're looking at some of the lessons learned, and they're really looking to Seattle for inspiration.
And they're like, wow, they're doing it.
So since the inception of Green Seattle, there have been so many great stories of park transformation.
And I would love to take everyone out on a tour to see it firsthand, but we brought you at least a couple here to show you.
So Westcrest Park, anybody know where it is?
Anybody been?
No.
That's one of my points.
So this is a really great park that exemplifies the power of a true partnership.
The park sits in West Seattle and Highland Park's neighborhood.
with White Center just to the south and South Park directly below.
So it's a huge asset in a neighborhood that really needs it.
Recently, parks and SPU expanded the park.
There was a reservoir lid, which now provides developed open space and this beautiful panoramic view of the city and mountains.
There's art installations, dog park, playground, and about 100 acres of beautiful towering trees, evergreens, madrones, comparable to other popular destination parks that we're more familiar with, like Seward Park, Discovery, Lincoln.
It's really quite beautiful with walking trails throughout.
But despite all that it has going for it, many people don't know it exists.
I've done outreach myself where I want to attract people to go to the park and then they don't even know it, right?
I'm in District 4 and I don't have a car, so getting to West Seattle is a bit of a commute.
That's true.
But I'm talking to people in South Park or in in the neighborhood near West Crest Park.
And often they don't know they have this huge, you know, gem of a park right there.
And so that was one challenge when we first started out.
Other people also maybe knew of it, but they were unsure if it was safe to walk in.
Is this a place that I can go?
Where do these trails lead me?
So, If we think back about 10 years ago, there really wasn't also an active Friends of group that was a champion for restoration and stewardship like we see at Magnuson Park or at Seward Park or, again, Discovery.
This is where Green Seattle came in and tried to take a different approach.
hundreds and hundreds of work parties through recruitment and outreach.
We've attracted some forest stewards over the years.
Not all of them have stuck, but today we have.
We're really excited.
We have a forest steward that's been there for about five years.
He works mostly on his own.
He's doing a lot of detailed work and a lot of work that's not suitable for big groups.
So we have this person out there.
But it's a lot of land to cover, right?
How are you going to make a lot of progress?
So then the Parks Department, through their Green Seattle Partnership funds, has deployed different organizations to help out.
So Earth Corps has hosted loads of volunteer events out there.
Dirt Corps, a local job training program, began hosting work parties, translating materials.
into Spanish to attract more people from the neighborhood and host work parties in Spanish and English.
Park staff also deployed contractor crews to do some of the work that volunteers can't do, some of the more technical work, and the natural area crew.
And so it's really, that's, again, all the pieces that the partnership can do that bring, and brings them all together to start transforming this park.
So it's happening.
It's transforming.
And I do encourage you, if you happen to be out in West Seattle, or if you happen to live in West Seattle, to take a look at this park.
It's really quite beautiful and has a beautiful forest.
And it still has a lot of work to be done.
And we hope that through this work that we can really build on the community cohesion around this park.
But this is not just about trees.
It's not just about research.
removing ivy.
It's about restoring essential functions in our neighborhoods that every resident needs in order to have a healthy life here in Seattle.
So there's one other example on Beacon Hill.
You know, this program and communities are transforming spaces like this that were once Blackberry Brambles, Lewis Park on Beacon Hill, and transforming them into our future healthy forests.
The neighborhood got so excited about literally what they uncovered, after rolling back Ivy and Blackberry, taking out all the garbage.
And here was this beautiful park that they had right in their backyard.
So they, as a group, pursued grants to install a trail system for the community to access the park.
And it's really phenomenal.
And we have these stories in every district, in every neighborhood, and happy to share them and take anyone on a tour.
And I think that's all I have.
So as you can see, we've seen some great success with the program, but the work doesn't come without its challenges.
Climate change is a real and present part of our forest restoration efforts.
It affects how we do our work, but it's also a big part of why we need to do the work.
We know that temperatures in Seattle can be 17 degrees hotter than nearby rural areas.
This heat map from 2014 shows this impact to the city.
It also shows the potential for our forests to be a heat sink, to absorb a lot of that heat.
and to have a major influence on public health.
We know that forests provide mental and physical health benefits in a number of ways and this shows the benefit of also cooling our communities.
You can see or rather it's actually kind of hard to see some of the forests because they are these cooler blue colors but you can see Discovery Park, Lincoln Park and Seward Park are all significantly cooler than the surrounding areas.
We also recognize that our partnership model gives us a better chance to solve these issues and challenges that we face in this work.
It allows for opportunities to involve a broad and diverse community, encouraging them to be innovative and bold in tackling this work.
It also provides that opportunity to build reciprocity and capacity for stewardship of natural areas into the future, again, engaging that informed and involved community as we do this work.
So while we're putting a lot of resources into the work and restoring and unlocking these green spaces, we're also getting a lot out of it by increasing access to neighbors, for families, individuals, and visitors to our city, and all of the health benefits that go along with that access to nature.
by strengthening neighborhood cohesion in providing this improved asset in their neighborhood and opportunities for neighbors to get together to make and keep it that way, and by creating, again, that sense of stewardship and connection to the land, and by improving the health of wildlife habitat and the Puget Sound.
So with limited time today, we hope that this has been a useful briefing for you and want to say that we're here and interested in continuing the conversation on the value, health, and management of our natural areas.
And also want to ask for your support to continue this effort through the last years of the restoration work and then also for the maintenance of these healthy areas.
Bless you.
to make sure that they stay healthy into the future.
And we hope that you'll consider coming out to see firsthand the impact of this work on our communities.
We have a great opportunity coming up for you to do so.
We have Green Seattle Day coming up on Saturday, November 2nd.
That's our large annual event that brings about 1,200 volunteers out to participate in planting at various parks all throughout the city.
It helps us kick off our planting season and, again, continue to build that community.
Our planning team for Green Saddle Day will be reaching out to your staff to check on availability in areas that are in your districts.
But if this day doesn't work for you, there are a thousand or so other events that happen throughout the year.
And those are listed and mapped on our website.
So you can check that out and find one that works for you.
And we hope to see you out there.
And again, just thank you for your time today.
Yeah, I'll be sure to promote it.
Council Member O'Brien, any questions?
I just want to thank you both for your organization's work and commitment to this.
It's an amazing program on so many fronts.
The picture of that forest at West Crest Park there, you could have said that was on the way up Mount Si and I would have believed you.
And to think that we have this beautiful forest land right in our city that folks can experience those trails is awesome.
In many places throughout the city.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Great run in Discovery Park over the weekend in the pouring rain and it's great to be even in the trees when it's raining out.
It's amazing.
So the work you do to essentially restore these amazing spaces that have been preserved for a variety of reasons in our city for decades and make them better for habitat and more accessible to people is amazing.
The work to unleash the energy of volunteers in our community and leverage that is also amazing.
I really appreciated the story about the park and identifying the gentleman who, I think it's a gentleman who's, you know, a forest steward there.
And it sounds like he's working independently a lot, but this, and I see the work along the Burke-Gilman Trail and often small groups or individuals out there doing work and it's just, Like every time I ride down there, it's like we've moved on another 20 feet.
And it just is like slow and steady.
And over the course of a number of years, it's like, wow, it's amazing how much work actually gets done because there's these dedicated individuals that are willing to do the work with a little support.
And you're providing that support and structure.
And then just the cohesion that comes together.
I've been to a Green Seattle Day a few times, but I'm usually bouncing around.
But seeing the people from the community that actually are working on a project together for months or years, and the cohesion that builds for the community beyond just the park, an opportunity for people to come together, multi-generational working together on things, it's really, really amazing.
And it's just, I'm grateful that it started here in Seattle, but it's so awesome that it's working other jurisdictions around the region.
I imagine the relationship is probably slightly different everywhere, depending on what the resources are and what's available.
But I would love to see that map be all of King, Snohomish, and Pierce County someday.
That's great.
Thank you for your support of the program.
And thank you again for being here.
And I want to thank Council Member Bagshaw, who reached out to our office about providing you the opportunity to present for the public.
And so thank you for the work that you do and present today.
Thank you.
So our final item of business will be a briefing from the Micromobility Coalition about the benefits of micromobility technologies for job access.
For this item, we will be joined over the phone by Ryan McConaughey from New York.
We are going to take a quick recess in order to get the call set up.
We should be back in about five minutes, so don't go too far.
No, will you please read the we are welcoming back from from the quick recess?
No, will you please read the abbreviated title into the record?
agenda item for micro mobility benefits and job access in Seattle Ryan thank you for taking the time to call in for this meeting.
Can you please introduce yourself and tell us briefly about your report?
Sure, thank you.
My name is Ryan McConaghy, and I'm the Executive Director of the Micromobility Coalition.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today.
In particular, I'd like to thank you, Chairman Pacheco, for your leadership on efforts to promote smart city policies that will help to create expanded access to micromobility in Seattle.
And I'd also like to thank Councilmember O'Brien, who has shown tremendous leadership on this issue as Chairman of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Both of you have called attention to the important role that micromobility can play in reducing emissions, relieving congestion, and increasing access to opportunity.
And we are proud and grateful to call you micromobility champions.
Recently, we released a report that shows widespread access to micromobility could be a game changer for Seattle residents looking for greater economic opportunity.
To study the impact of increased access to micromobility, our study looks at the distance a Seattle commuter without a car can travel in 45 minutes on foot or with transit, compares that to the distance they could cover by using an e-scooter, and then totals up the number of jobs located in the additional commuting radius.
Our analysis shows that, on average, if e-scooters were widely available in Seattle, workers living in the city would have access to 35% more job opportunities without lengthening commutes or adding cars to the road.
These benefits would be widely realized in neighborhoods throughout the city, including 242,000 additional jobs reachable from Holler Lake, 194,000 jobs reachable from West Seattle, 48,000 additional jobs reachable from South Seattle, 152,000 additional jobs reachable from Capitol Hill, 222,000 additional jobs reachable from Wedgwood, 67,000 additional jobs reachable from Greenwood, 157,000 additional reachable from Magnolia.
Residents in communities that would benefit from greater transportation equity and opportunity also see benefits.
For example, Rainier Valley's District 2 sees 116,000 increase in job access.
And Lake City's District 5 sees 107,000 additional job opportunities accessible within a reasonable commute.
Since e-scooters often serve as a first-mile, last-mile solution to link commuters to transit systems, it's not surprising that the largest gains come from areas that are just beyond a reasonable walking distance from Vancouver Light, rail, and other transit.
Maudibly, Seattle has established a goal of having 72% of households within a 10-minute walk from 10-minute or better transit service by 2025. The city should be commended for the incredible progress it has made toward this goal.
However, current access is at 67%, and much of the low-hanging fruit in terms of transit access improvements has been picked.
Micromobility could put Seattle over the top and more.
Our analysis shows that widespread access to micromobility would boost the 10-minute access to 78% and 11% gain.
And our analysis assumes a five-minute walk to find a micromobility device.
So, if anything, this is a conservative estimate.
These findings show that micromobility devices would have a concrete positive impact for Seattle citizens.
Widespread access to e-scooters can help move people out of cars and onto transit, connect disadvantaged communities to more transportation options, and help Seattle businesses have more access to workers and generally improve the quality of life in the metro area.
We are committed to promoting best practices like we've seen in places like Portland and Spokane, where thoughtful partnerships and smart incentives have led to successful outcomes for local residents.
I thank the committee very much for the opportunity to speak today and look forward to being helpful going forward.
Well, thank you, Ryan.
I think as you spoke about your report and the increase to access to jobs and transit as a first, last mile option, I think I speak for a number of council members about the need to create additional infrastructure to support safe routes for scooters or different multi.
different mobility options throughout our city.
And so I appreciate the report and being able to highlight just the importance about being able to access jobs and as a first last mile solution.
While we may have sometimes disagreements about that, we definitely want to make sure that we build out the infrastructure that's necessary for us to support folks being having a safe access to having the access to their job as well as to transit.
Council Member O'Brien, do you have any questions?
I do.
I'm not terribly familiar with the...
Brian, what's the name of the organization?
Micromobility...
The Micromobility Coalition.
Coalition.
Could you tell us a little bit about the membership?
I'm assuming it's a lot of the scooter and bike share companies, but can you inform us on that?
Yes, we represent micromobility providers who are in over 100 cities worldwide, and we play a role in advocating for, one, just public education on the benefits of micromobility.
Also, weighing in on policies that will lead to greater access, safe environments, improved lives through access to micromobility.
And also try to work with the transportation community to make sure that when the next generation of transportation policy is being crafted, that micromobility has a seat at the table and is involved in local, state, and national planning decisions.
Great.
And so specifically focused on scooters or is bike share also in the definition of micromobility?
Our coalition is particularly focused on e-scooters and e-bikes at the moment.
So are Lime...
And specifically dockless.
Okay.
So Lime, Jump, Bird, members of the coalition?
Jump and Lyme are the founding members of our coalition.
Okay, great.
Thanks for that clarity.
You know, we, the members on council have been eagerly hoping for a rollout relatively soon.
Probably not soon enough for Council Member Pacheco and I, but the mayor, I believe, has a timeline to to start piloting the spring of 2020. And so some of the things I want to just highlight, I've obviously had conversations with the providers themselves, but I think for the public and for the coalition to understand that, you know, a successful rollout is going to be, from my perspective, one that not only brings a lot of the points you highlighted, the new accessibility to more mobility options, but also addresses the kind of ongoing concerns that folks have, which is both around, you know, what right of way is being used for transport and the types of behavior that folks that are using it.
exhibit, and then also where do people park these in a way that, you know, doesn't, well, it's increasing mobility for some folks is decreasing mobility options for others.
And, you know, there's definitely examples we see where the companies have stepped up enforcement to their membership and passed along fines or discontinued membership when people repeat behavior that's inappropriate.
Those appear to be, you know, relatively small, but small instances where that kind of enforcement is happening.
I'm also encouraging the Seattle Department of Transportation with our existing free-floating bike chair companies to also step up our enforcement of the companies, hoping that they will pass that on to their customers.
This is a new form of transportation.
It's new and exciting, which is great.
But the newness also means there aren't a lot of established norms about how to behave around it.
And the long-term success is going to be contingent upon us establishing those norms really quickly so that we don't end up in a condition where we have traded off some people's mobility for other people's mobility.
I do believe that there is an opportunity to expand mobility options for everybody simultaneously on this, but it's only going to work if there's kind of deep collaboration and coordination between the industry, the individual players, the users, and everyone else in the city for Seattle, the people in Seattle to map that out.
And so look forward to that partnership and really hope we can build on some of the best examples when that pilot gets deployed next year.
I just want to echo what Councilmember O'Brien said.
You know, I think about just part of my advocacy for scooters and different micro mobility options is just a bit of the lived experience.
I haven't owned a car for 14 years and given up a car.
I sold my car four years ago.
It's because of a lot of the mobility options that we have here as a city.
But every morning, every afternoon after work, make sure that, you know, I get on one of those e-bikes to the light rail and go back, light rail to the e-bike to go home.
And I think that that's another avenue for folks to be able to get out of a car to relieve the congestion that we have as well as to do what we can individually and collectively to address our issues of climate change.
So thank you, Ryan, for your presentation or your comments.
greatly appreciated, and we, this committee, as well as I know other members of the council, will continue to be advocates for different micromobility options in our city.
So I appreciate you giving us a few minutes to highlight the report.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I would just echo, I think, you know, our providers in the industry look forward to the kind of partnership that Council Member O'Brien talked about.
We are deeply committed to not making the sidewalk a zero-sum game.
You know, I think there are a lot of good policies that we can deploy on, you know, creating more parking, creating safe spaces so that everyone can share the road responsibly.
So, happy to continue to be a resource to you and look forward to a partnership that will, you know, bring this transportation option to the people of Seattle.
All right, well, thank you.
This concludes the September 24th, 2019 meeting of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.
This is our final meeting before budget, and likely my final meeting as the plus chair.
Thank you all for attending.
We are adjourned.