missing title

Okay, the February 4th, 2026 Land Use Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.32 AM.

I'm Eddie Lin, chair of the Land Use Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Council Member Foster.

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Chair Lin.

Present.

Chair, there are, I believe, five members present with the addition of Council Member Rivera.

Wonderful, thank you.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for being here.

Again, Eddie Lynn, Land Use and Sustainability Committee Chair.

As always, thank you to our city clerks, council central staff and SDCI for helping us prepare for this meeting.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

We have six in-person and five remote speakers.

Wonderful.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which the registered in-person speakers will be called first, after which we will move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers will be muted if they do not end their comments within a lot of time to allow us to call in the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Patrick Foley.

Patrick Foley from Lake Union Partners.

We're a Seattle-based commercial real estate developer who develops mostly urban infill apartment buildings and historic preservation projects.

I'm here to speak about the permanent removal of SEPA from building affordable and market-rate housing.

as someone who builds a lot of housing in this city.

That's just one step that we can remove to reduce the time.

If we want to produce more housing, I think it's a highly effective tool that we can use in the legislative process.

So I would encourage you to pass that so that we can get more housing built, affordable, and market rate in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Logan Schmidt.

Morning, committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Logan Schmidt on behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties.

MBACS supports Ordinance 121093 and the city's proposal to streamline CEPA review for infill, residential, and mixed-use development.

This ordinance provides a clear, predictable framework to advance housing production while still meeting Seattle's long-standing growth and environmental goals.

Importantly, this proposal reflects a reality we've already seen in practice.

Project level CEPA review is largely redundant.

Environmental impacts are already addressed through Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act, and through extensive code requirements, such as the critical areas ordinance, stormwater standards, shoreline regulations, and infrastructure and design rules.

Streamlining SEPA is not a rollback of environmental standards.

It's an acknowledgement that those standards are already embedded throughout the city's planning and regulatory framework.

We urge your support to move this ordinance forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Luke.

Next up, we have Norris Cooper.

Hello, I'm Norris Cooper, and I'm on the development team at Holland, where I oversee the development of approximately 1,000 apartment multifamily units.

We've used the SEPA exemption twice on two projects, one in Fremont and one in Ballard.

And in today's challenging investment in real estate market, the risk reduction in time savings really is something that's important to equity and attract capital to get these projects across the board.

Both of these projects collectively add 422 units to the Seattle housing crisis and both participate in MFTE and MHA is being performed on the Fremont deal and we paid $3 million into the MHA fund on the Ballard deal.

So we urge your support.

eliminates risk for equity when we are trying to pitch these deals to get financing.

And yeah, thanks.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Laurie McEwen.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.

My name is Lori McEwen.

I lead the development team at NHTSA Stegen.

We're a local developer providing primarily workforce housing in the city.

I'm here today to express my strong support for the proposed SEPA exemption legislation.

Over the past five years, my team has permitted just under 1,000 housing units in Seattle.

In 2023, we had the opportunity to opt out of the SEPA review for our most recent 200-unit apartment building, and that experience clearly demonstrated the value of this approach.

Eliminating the SEPA requirement saves valuable time at the beginning of a project, as well as substantial cost associated with preparing the checklist and the specialized technical reports that accompany it.

Those months matter.

Just as importantly, the issues addressed in the SEPA checklist are already thoroughly reviewed elsewhere in the permitting process.

The 15 or so elements, things like critical areas, construction noise, traffic, historic preservation, are all evaluated through existing entitlement and permit reviews.

From a practitioner's perspective, SEPA has become largely redundant, while still adding delay and expense.

Today, housing development is challenged from every direction, rising construction costs, labor shortages, tariffs, material availability.

In this environment, every unnecessary barrier matters.

Eliminating SIPA review will not by itself make a project feasible, but it is a meaningful part of the toolkit, and it provides real value to those of us who are building housing in the city.

I strongly encourage your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Steve Rubstello.

Christmas is a little late this year.

Hanukkah for some, Festivus for others, many other choices also.

SEPA is the net.

It catches the odd thing.

To remove it, is an assault on the people of the city of Seattle, like many other things which have happened in land use.

You know, there was no laws against owning nuclear weapons when there were no nuclear weapons.

SEPA takes care of those unanticipated, absolutely horrifying things which can happen because you and the departments are not all-knowing.

and the citizens of Seattle have got assaults after assault on land use.

The other thing I'd like to bring out is the idea that lowering the cost to developers lowers the cost of housing.

That's a pure lie in Seattle.

It only increases the margin.

because you give them a million dollar subsidy and they ain't cutting the cost of a million dollars.

They're putting it right in their pocket where they believe it belongs.

So if you believe what you've been hearing about how this is going to help Seattle housing, one of the definitions of insanity is keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

We have been giving and giving and giving, and we have not seen that real affordable housing.

There's a lot of reasons for the problems we have with housing.

What we have right here is not a solution.

What you might consider is raising the MHA fees, because that would actually provide more money for affordable housing.

Thank you, Steve.

Next up, we have Cindy Shetler.

Thanks, yeah.

Is this one on?

Oh, okay, great, super.

Okay, I'm Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle, and I'm asking that you please recognize that this bill removes environmental review that's not replaced by the comp plan or the GMA.

In the face of our housing crisis, the state told cities they could allow limited SEPA exemptions to help spur housing production.

but when the housing exemption drops from 50% of the FAR to just one unit, a token ADU exempts an entire 30,000 square foot project from any environmental review.

That's not housing policy, that's a loophole.

I want to thank Council Member Rink.

for recognizing this and proposing an amendment to lower the parking exemption to 20 spaces instead of the proposed 90. That amendment moves us in the right direction, but it doesn't fix the core issue.

SEPA exists to ensure the city understands climate and community impacts before making irreversible land use decisions, especially in overburdened communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

Next up we have Jennifer Godfrey.

Hi.

Thank you.

So as a constituent of the city, my voice should carry the same weight as anyone who works for a developer and the city.

You've likely seen the new study by Storper of UCLA showing that deregulation does not increase affordability.

Bless you.

Bless you.

Why do people want to live in the Emerald City?

It's to be near nature.

Nobody wants to live near a waterfront where everything is dead.

121093 uses the inadequate final EIS to deregulate most development for the next 10 or more years.

In my view, colonization is the for-profit erosion of indigenous tribal rights.

The FEIS states that we can't protect the environment due to Euro-American colonization damage.

Does that make it right to continue?

I can't wait for Seattle to stand up to destructive special interests.

I welcome a Seattle that respects indigenous rights by protecting clean water, fish habitat, and the green space that keeps our air and water cool and clean throughout its watershed.

I am excited to support the work of Alexis Mercedes Rink on Amendment 1. I propose removing the words flexible and principal from the parking language and the director's promulgation developer open door.

Additionally, I propose taking bold action with an amendment to rework the rest of this bill and instead add language, making it easier for builders to renovate existing structures like empty office buildings to provide housing while elevating downtown, rapidly increasing housing supply and affordability.

The intersection of affordability and ecosystem is middle housing and renovating existing buildings.

As is, this bill reduces the incentives for housing and increases the incentives for double-sized parking lots, which will heat and fast track polluted water into our waterways unchecked.

You may have seen the Puget Sound Keeper, recent study that shows that more than half of salmon died returning to Longfellow Creek this year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Next up, we have Alex Zimmerman.

Hi, my lovely friend.

Yeah, my name is Alex Zimmermann.

Each time I see the word zoning for 34 years, what does it count here?

A little bit confused.

I don't know what does this mean?

Zoning, yeah.

Concentration camp zoning.

Yeah, jail zoning, another zoning, too many zoning.

My question is very simple right now, and I cannot understand what's happening in Seattle, in every Seattle time print article, so we have approximately 35 apartment empty in price for last year, four, five times.

I talk, we talking, we talking about Zoning, we can put in this 35-35 apartment empty.

You know what it means, what it's staying?

And I've been talking about this for many years.

You're supposed to be something doing about this.

You're not acting like a freaking degenerative idiot.

This empty apartment costs a ton of money.

500 homeless dying every year.

Poor people out, black out.

We have rich people who stand in doing.

Trump absolutely right.

He told about this.

This need be stopping.

is supposed to be gone out.

He's right.

For this, I support him.

I wait for him for 40 years.

Guy, you need something, do it, because you look like a pure degenerative idiot.

You're not a socialist.

You're a bandita, a Nazi pig.

It's very simple, fix it, everything.

Make the rules, and I told you before, empty apartments, stay and pay.

Penalty.

Stay in empty, pay penalty.

Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.

Next up we have Susan Feodor.

Good morning.

Thank you for the amendment reducing number of parking spots.

It's a positive step forward.

But several case studies over the past few years have debunked the myth that if we simply increase housing density, it will solve the issue of affordability.

The issue is not as simple as supply-side economics.

For example, Vancouver BC tripled their infill only to see housing costs quadruple.

Home prices are now the highest in North America because additional value of the new density allowance is captured by the landowner.

Smart developers know this and many make most of their money by becoming the landowners during the rezoning process.

The land value immediately inflates and will continue to do so.

I've got studies, several case studies listed here.

To effectively address the affordability issue and environmental concerns, please consider legislation that incentivizes renovations to existing buildings.

We have structurally sound, 100-plus-year-old homes built of old-growth timber made to endure our climate that are being demolished and replaced by more expensive housing, displacing renters as well.

By instead preserving Seattle's historical homes to create a duplex, maybe adding a detached unit, it not only addresses housing stock but avoids all that debris from getting dumped into our landfills.

and after experiencing back-to-back extreme weather events of severe statewide drought last summer, followed by catastrophic flooding, and now diminished snowpack that will impact our watersheds and thus threaten our water supply during the summer months, we need the guidance of SEPA and environmental reviews more than ever before.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's our last in-person speaker.

We will now move on to our remote speakers, beginning with June Blue Spruce.

Hello.

Thank you.

Hundreds of Seattle residents spoke up against this bill two months ago, and yet it is now in front of you virtually unchanged.

I urge you to vote no.

If you do pass it, please pass Councilmember Rinks Amendment 1 which would decrease the number of parking spaces that would trigger super review from 90, that's approximately 36,000 square feet of pavement, so a much more reasonable 20. Thank you for that, Councilmember Rink.

Aside from that, the bill makes it significantly easier for builders to skip environmental review.

One of the biggest problems with the bill is that it relies on the City's EIS for the One Seattle Plan as sufficient to reduce and eliminate almost all super review for the next 10 plus years.

but this EIS is deeply flawed and under appeal.

It fails to assess the health and environmental impacts of continued rapid loss of large trees and tree canopy, including increased polluted stormwater running into the Sound and increased heat islands.

The EIS was written to apply to half the number of new housing units that were eventually included in the plan.

Other environmental regulations are in flux and do not fill in the gaps.

Please remove the bill's exemptions from SEPA review for protection cultural resources, buildings less than 65,000 square feet, double the amount of dirt excavated, and inclusion of only one unit of housing.

Here's an alternative that others have referenced.

Reduce permitting costs for renovations to existing buildings.

Seattle already has many empty office buildings downtown that are closest to the most frequent transit in the city.

A recent study shows that deregulation does not increase affordability and may increase displacement.

We do not have to sacrifice public health and environmental balance to have enough affordable housing in Seattle.

There's a better way.

You need to lead the way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sarah Clark.

Sarah?

Please press star six if you're here.

There we go.

Oh.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Lynn and members of the Land Use and Sustainability Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

For the record, I'm Sarah Clark and I'm here today speaking on behalf of the over 2,600 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber, respectfully urging your support for Council Bills 121093 and 121135. Seattle faces a severe housing shortage and one of the most consistent barriers to producing new homes is the time, cost and uncertainty created by duplicative permitting processes.

These two bills are a critical step towards addressing that challenge by streamlining the environmental review process.

It is important to be clear about what these bills do and do not do.

They do not eliminate environmental protection or review where it is legally required.

They preserve robust requirements for critical areas, shorelines, stormwater, tree protection, historic and cultural resources, and transportation impacts.

projects in sensitive areas or with characteristics requiring review will still undergo environmental review and enforceable mitigation requirements remain in place.

From the Chamber's perspective, predictable and timely permitting is essential not just for housing developers, but for workers, small businesses, and families who are being priced out of our city.

Streamlining these processes will help deliver more housing, support transit-oriented development, and strengthen Seattle's economic vitality.

For these reasons, the Seattle Metro Chamber and our members strongly support Council Bill 121093 and 121135 and respectfully urge the committee to advance those bills.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

Next up, we have Dave Glover.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Dave Gloger.

I live in District 5, and I'm here to comment about Council Bill 121093. It seems like every year the developers come out and they say, you need to get rid of this regulation or that requirement because then we will produce affordable housing and we'll have a solution to the housing crisis.

But it never seems to work.

In 2023, they asked us to get rid of all protection for trees on properties so they could make affordable housing.

That didn't do it.

It just produced clear cuts on property, allowed them to cut down trees for driveways and other things that really didn't affect the development.

And then in 2025, the city implemented HB 1110 into the city code, and that was allowing four to six houses on each property.

Did that produce affordable housing?

No, it just produced four to six multimillion dollar houses on the property.

at least a million dollars.

That's not affordable.

And now they want you to get rid of CEPA reviews because that'll produce affordable housing.

That'll drive down the cost.

Well, I don't think that's going to happen.

It's just going to affect our environment.

The only way to really reduce housing prices and make things affordable is through government mandates and programs like Roots to Roof that was passed last year, which has government funding.

but just these, getting rid of regulations does not produce affordable housing.

It just puts more money in the developer's pocket.

But I do ask you to support council members' rank amendment one.

That's the one good thing in this meeting.

And this council bill is really a legacy of the Harrell administration.

I think we should see what the new administration wants to do and ask Mayor Wilson what she wants.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Next up we have Ryan McKinster.

Good morning, Chair of the Landing Committee members.

Ryan McKinster with Habitat for Humanity, Seattle King and Kinnitas County.

I'm also a renter in Seattle District 6. For 40 years, Habitat has built permanently affordable homes for over 2,600 families.

Educators, healthcare workers, bus drivers, and social workers who keep our communities running.

We strongly support Ordinance 121093. This ordinance recognizes what our experience shows.

Meaningful environmental review happens at the comprehensive planning level, not necessarily on individual infill projects.

Seattle already maintains strong protections through critical area regulations, stormwater standards, and extensive design requirements.

The temporary secret suspension proved these existing standards effectively protect environmental resources without additional project level analysis.

For families like ours, the Cornejos, who waited years to close their habitat home in Seattle, every month of delay means another month of housing instability.

Redundant reviews slow housing production without improving environmental outcomes.

Our pipeline includes 204 permanently affordable homes, 75% of those in Seattle.

These serve essential workers at 68% of our area median income.

Streamlining permits means we serve more families sooner with the same limited public resources.

We urge you to advance Ordinance 121093, and thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Ryan.

Last, we have Ruth Williams.

Good morning.

My name is Ruth Williams and I'm speaking on behalf of the Thornton Creek Alliance.

The Thornton Creek watershed is the largest one in Seattle and the largest one in Shoreline.

We are very concerned about the welfare of this watershed and all our watersheds as they are all supported and harmed by urban activities.

More than 10 years ago, due to massive pre-spawn mortality, it was forbidden to release salmon smolts into Thornton Creek.

That situation continues.

With legislation like this before us today, improvement seems a long way off.

You cannot call it positive environmental outcome when the policy is blocking pre-canopy goals and results in heat island effects, hot dirty air and more contaminated runoff.

You cannot call it a positive environmental outcome when increased impervious surfaces cause more warmer contaminated runoff and there is no calculation of how much there might be in the future and how it would be mitigated.

And you certainly cannot honestly quote the final EIS and say, stormwater contaminants that enter Puget Sound and other marine areas are almost immediately diluted to concentrations too low to have any discernible effects on species in that environment.

Please vote no.

We need more sustainable policies than this will provide.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Ruth.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, clerk.

As there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our items of business.

But before we do so, just want to thank everybody for your comments.

I know there are differences of opinion about how to grow and how to protect our environment, how to protect our trees and our salmon and our orcas.

But I do believe that we all are in alignment about how critical it is to protect our environment.

to keep this in Evergreen City.

And so thank you all for your advocacy and for being here today.

We will now move on to our first items of business.

Will the clerk please read items one and two into the record?

Agenda items one and two, Council Bill 121-135.

land use and zoning, revising requirements for transportation impact analysis, transportation management plans and construction management plans in Council Bill 121093 in ordinance relating to land use and zoning, revising environmental review thresholds and related provisions addressing transportation related requirements and archeological and cultural resource preservation requirements.

Okay, thank you to our presenters for joining us.

And do we have a presentation?

And then once, yeah, could you introduce yourself for the record and if we do have a presentation?

I'm Dave VanSkaik.

I'm the policy director at SDCI and I'm here with my colleague Gordon Clowers.

So thank you members of the committee for this meeting and look forward to giving you a quick briefing.

Thank you.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

I think we were anticipating doing a high-level overview.

We have the presentation from October 31st of 2025, which was when one of the public hearings was held on these bills.

We can pull it up if that is to refresh the committee's memory about the content of these bills.

I think that would be helpful.

I mean, I know this has gone to similar bills come to committee before we've had discussion.

We do have a new council member and perhaps for some of the members of the public who maybe had not heard that discussion before.

Just in terms of for my colleagues, please feel free to chime in, ask questions.

Given a relatively short agenda, I think it'd be better just to have a more interactive dialogue if we have questions.

So without further ado, if you could proceed.

Thank you.

Just tell me when to stream.

Actually, I'm just going to start with addressing kind of a high level scope of this for members of the committee are new.

The history and purpose of SEPA actually goes back to the Nixon administration.

I think it's really useful to think about what SEPA was built for and then where it has grown over time.

We've had 50 years of SEPA acting, I think as a lot of people in the public comment captured correctly, as a backstop.

It's a net to catch the things that we didn't anticipate, really.

In plain terms, that I think is a good way to frame it.

Over 50 years, we've had a chance to refine our land use codes significantly, all of our land use control ordinances.

You've heard a number of those mentioned.

Welcome, Rivera.

Good to see you.

Thank you for coming.

So over time, SEPA has become less and less of a tool that we use.

And we have that experience not just in terms of seeing the growth of regulations, which has been extensive over that time, but also how little SEPA has been used.

That's just sort of the basic starting point of how we got here.

I think it's important to note right off the bat, there's some misapprehensions about what SEPA has the authority to do and what it actually does.

We're not getting rid of SEPA, not by any stretch.

I think what the purpose of this legislation, which is really driven by a state effort to say, cities and counties right size your SEPA thresholds to the growth you've already anticipated.

That's essentially what they're allowing jurisdictions to do.

So it's lowering, raising thresholds in areas where we recognize SEPA is not particularly useful and over time has not resulted in the things that you might have needed SEPA for in the past.

It's not catching those things because we have those regulations.

And we're not ending up to impose conditions on project levels as low as the SEPA thresholds have been set.

So that's the reason to raise them.

One of the benefits that this committee has is being able to observe what has happened during the pandemic, where we lived under a version of these rules.

And during that timeframe, this committee and others did significant work on the Comprehensive Plan and other regulatory reforms, with SEPA largely absent.

The thresholds that are being proposed here are actually more stringent than the thresholds that we've been living under Senate Bill 5412 during that timeframe.

So we have this body of experience that informs this is how SEPA can and should work.

Again, we're not eliminating that authority at all.

We're aligning it with the decisions that this council has already made.

And I think it's important to come at it from that perspective.

I know you wanted to reserve time for questions.

I'm happy to run through the slide deck.

I know Councilmember Rivera had a significant number of questions initially that we worked through.

I'm happy to entertain anything else that you got.

Colleagues, any questions?

First of all, Chair Lynn, thank you so much and apologies I didn't tell you ahead of time I was going to drop by today.

I didn't realize ahead of time the agenda items, and so normally I give you notice.

Thank you for the grace, and thank you for welcoming me.

Thank you for joining.

Thank you.

And just to say that I did have an extensive briefing from SDCI who answered my questions about constituent concerns related to SEPA review and what this means.

And SDCI, I know that you all do have things in place that go beyond some of the state SEPA review requirements.

And so I don't know, and apologies if those have been already reviewed before today, but in light of I was listening to public comment, it might be helpful to talk a little bit about that to put constituents' minds at ease.

to your point, we're not eliminating CEPA altogether and the SCCI has already things in place that go beyond the state and so if you can talk a little bit about that and address some of the constituent concerns, I had equal concerns, that would be very helpful because we do want to encourage development, we want to do things that are thoughtful and make sense and I understand folks feeling like and I've seen projects that during COVID didn't get, I don't think it was necessarily proper SEPA review, this was on the SDCI end, but there are things that have happened, and even in my district, like, you know, sewage issues post facto, and then that we have to address.

And so I know where this is coming from, all to say, and I want to make sure that constituents feel comfortable and I understand the distrust with government as well.

I want them to feel comfortable that this is not foregoing anything that is really necessary or required.

And if you can talk a little bit about what SDCI does that maybe goes beyond the state, that might be helpful.

And apologies again, Chair, if you've already addressed this at a prior meeting.

Thank you.

No, we haven't, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lynn.

Yeah, I'm happy to answer that.

and I think this will go back to some of the briefings that we've had, I think, across different members of the committee.

To get a permit in Seattle, there's 39 different permitting steps or permitting types that a proposed development would go through.

Throughout those 39 different types of permits or approvals, there are literally hundreds of codes that apply to those.

When it comes to the environmental concerns that are oftentimes what we look to see, but it's got the word environmental in the title, right?

So when we think of those sorts of codes, there are extensive authorities, some granted by the federal government under Clean Water Act and how we implement those through local stormwater regulations.

Those are very specific and very thorough.

The same, I would say, you know, of trees.

We have a tree ordinance, which was, you know, in my mind to sort of recently adopt it, but we've had it for a couple years.

This has been an area that council has put a lot of focus on and getting it right.

That's a set of regulations that are both specific, and comprehensive.

Now, whether or not we get individual regulations exactly right, reasonable minds can differ.

I can certainly sympathize with members of the public that say, well, just because it's written down in this one place doesn't mean the outcome is what we expect.

Across those different types of codes, though, I think it's instructive to note what the relationship of SEPA is to the ECA code or the stormwater code or to the shoreline master program.

Essentially, SEPA is standing as a backstop if there isn't something that's anticipated or specific.

And there's a policy, and we did this last time in the last committee meeting where we talked about something that only real SEPA nerds understand, which is the overview policy.

And it's this overarching application of SEPA that you use where you say, if there's another code that is both more specific and more effective, you defer to that code.

The benefit of doing that is twofold.

One is it creates some consistency and it's more easily understood.

You've heard folks in the audience or in the public comment reflect on predictability.

Well, if it's written down and it's specific, it's predictable.

SEPA is discretionary.

It is up to the individual department to figure out, okay, what is the right fit here?

So in many ways, it's better to have it specific and nested in a set of regulations.

As a member of the public, you want that.

You don't want the unpredictability any more than a developer wants unpredictability.

The second thing that I think is important about that is it's not appealable, not directly appealable the way that a SEPA condition would be.

So under SEPA review, if we thought, okay, there's a gap in the regulations or there's a possibility of a gap in the regulations, we're gonna impose a condition to make sure that that gap is covered.

well that's still appealable to the hearing examiner and we have been overturned many times in imposing a condition that we thought was reasonable and then under the light of that additional scrutiny by the city the hearing examiner found no.

There is no quick appeal path to let's say a stormwater regulation.

You can't just challenge that to the hearing examiner.

There are appeal pathways but there's a much tougher route and it's a much higher standard.

It would be taking it to court.

I think that comments are well placed in their intention, but the thing that maybe is missing is just the breadth of the underlying regulations and how much work this council specifically and over 50 years has put into getting those right.

And, I mean, I think to other comments that we hear, how frequently that is revisited by this committee.

Are we getting it right?

Again, the notion in my mind, we're not getting rid of CEPA, we're just putting the effort where it is both more effective, more predictable, and more under the control of the legislative body saying, these are the right rules for the job.

That's the way that I come at that problem set.

Does that help?

Yes, if I may, Chair.

a follow-up.

I know when we met together, I'm a nerd, so I was nerding out on some of this stuff with you.

at the end of the day, the city has a number of codes, both imposed by the federal government and the city itself, that really lead on a lot of the permitting that we approve.

I'll say it that way.

And those codes are more specific than SEPA, so that the reason you're saying we're not despite this legislation we're not getting rid of the review that we do because we have a number of codes that other cities actually may not have but Seattle does have that govern and lead whether or not SEPA speaks about it because SEPA is broader, more general and the codes are more specific and the City Council could at any time impose more codes or tweak the codes that we have to fit what is needed in the city.

Am I remembering right from our meeting and what you're saying now?

Yeah, I believe you captured it well.

Yeah, thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

So it's not that we don't care about SEPA, is that we have a number of codes at the city that really take up the work, where perhaps other cities don't.

And so SEPA is a state regulation that all cities have to abide by.

And our city has chosen to do these codes.

Is it okay, Chair, if I ask Ketel to, if he has anything to weigh in?

Because I'm looking at him like maybe he has something to also add.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, just to maybe elaborate a little bit on what Dave was describing.

There are sort of, when people talk about SEPA, they talk about substantive SEPA and procedural SEPA.

And I think some of what you heard in public comment today was about procedural SEPA.

One thing that SEPA sort of provides is disclosures in the development process.

by raising categorical exemption levels, which is what is proposed to be done here, there would be fewer of those disclosures.

Dave mentioned the overview policy and the city's SEPA substantive policies.

He's right about those.

As a matter of policy, the city has generally said if it is mitigated by another code, then we can't apply any other SEPA conditioning as part of a permit approval.

Where there is maybe an exception to that is in the cases of environmental impact statements.

So if an action, a city action, a permit approval is likely to have probable, significant and adverse impacts, that's the jargon from SEPA, then there has to be more disclosures, and that's done through an environmental impact statement, which is very costly.

and very time-consuming, they take a year or more at least.

The city does have authority through EISs to impose conditions, right, because those EISs may disclose impacts that need to be mitigated.

Examples of that are large projects.

So think Yessler Terrace, that was a planned action ordinance.

The city imposed SEPA mitigation.

Actually, SHA was sort of the lead agency there, but the city used its authority to impose mitigation.

as part of the city's substantive SEPA review.

So by raising categorical exemptions, big projects may not be subject to SEPA anymore, and so that opportunity would be foregone.

Sort of the theory here behind 5412 is that until we reach our targets for residential and employment growth, the EIS for the Comprehensive Plan has effectively disclosed what those impacts might be and identified sources of mitigation.

Thank you, Ketel.

And what I hear SDCI saying is that there's still, we still have the codes in place that lead on a lot of things that we would have to review before we permit.

So there's kind of a, so correct me if I'm wrong, a backstop, even if this legislation moves forward today by way of all the codes that we have and the requirements that that we are allowed to, or the conditions we're allowed to put on the approvals.

Am I misunderstanding?

Right.

There is a backstop.

That backstop, you know, doesn't apply prospectively, so if there are unforeseen things, they aren't necessarily going to catch that.

The remedy, of course, there for the Council would be to revisit either the categorical exemption levels that are proposed to be changed during these bills or to establish new regulations that address kind of an identified environmental impact.

So the bottom line is, what is the huge key tool in your mind?

So I'm hearing you say this is a procedural SEPA.

This goes to procedural, not substantive.

So that's...

It's a little bit of both, right?

So fewer projects would be subject to SEPA review, right?

So to the extent that the city would have the ability to impose substantive SEPA conditioning through an EIS, for example, that would be foregone if those projects are categorically exempt.

But only some of those projects, sorry.

I just want to understand, not all projects.

If a project is still exceeding a SEPA threshold and is also triggering, you know, it would have probable significant adverse impacts, then that project would be subject to SEPA review and could potentially, you know, end up having an EIS required for it if there were, you know, if that determination that those impacts were made.

And what happens, Ketel, if there's a project that was exempt and then on the back end it gets built and there is an issue?

They're vested.

They're entitled.

There's not really any kind of post hoc action the city could take to address impacts from their project.

So then what happens to those projects?

I mean, there's, you know, let's say there's, I don't know, back to my sewage example, there was issue with the way the development was done.

I think in that case the city probably revisits its codes and says, you know, here's something that we missed.

Do we need to change our stormwater grading drainage control code?

Do we need to change our super thresholds to make sure this doesn't happen again?

But that's the legislative remedy.

There may be another to think about, and I don't disagree with any of what Kiel's describing.

I think that's right.

But in terms of the situation you described, there's some sort of a challenge with the sewer.

The first place that we revisit is actually, are we in compliance with the codes?

Like, that's the first place.

So there is an enforcement leg of the land use code in all of our environmental and technical codes.

So that's the first place we would go is, well was this missed or was this constructed wrong or any number of things.

Those situations are fairly rare.

In fact, I can't recall a case where something completely complied with the code, was inspected per code, and then there was a radically unanticipated impact.

Usually what happens is there's some sort of an implementation piece that went wrong.

Something got missed in an inspection.

In those cases, projects are vested.

they were approved, but they're still the enforcement leg to make sure that they're complying with whatever the standards of the permit are.

But then, you know, situations that are outside that, Ketel's exactly right.

We, and this is part of the work of this committee, is revisiting codes and saying, okay, do we get the lens right?

I think that, in fact, that lens metaphor of are we looking at the right things is really what this legislation is about.

It's not that EISs go away, and it's not that SEPA review goes away.

It's what lens are we using to say, we need to know if this project needs an EIS.

That's really what thresholds are about, is which projects do we want to put under the scrutiny of, is this likely to have significant adverse impacts, yes or no?

And the change in thresholds is changing that lens from a level where we have found over time, we're not doing EISs on the sorts of projects that the comp plan already anticipated, but we still have authority to do, take projects through SIPA review and say, oh, this actually does need an EIS.

This project is, you know, so outside of kind of the realm of what was anticipated by the code that we need to do an EIS.

Those are very rare, but we certainly do them, and that's part of the work of SDCI and permitting.

One last question.

Are there any codes that you, in light of this legislation, any codes that you would recommend strengthening that would be helpful?

Ketel?

Yeah, so this bill is about strengthening codes in some ways.

So in order to invoke this authority to have higher SEPA thresholds, the city has to sort of come up with ways to do something SEPA-like to catch sort of where there may be impacts.

And it's in two domains, right?

And those are domains that two elements of the environment to use SEPA jargon that are identified in the FEIS to the comprehensive plan update.

And that's in transportation and also in preservation of cultural resources.

And so the proposal here from SDCI, largely in CB 121135, but in both bills, is to fill in those gaps.

And I don't know if you want to refresh the committee's memory about sort of what that, how it does.

Yeah, I can speak to that.

So also in past times that the similar bill has been heard at the Council, we determined that a transportation study that is non-SEPA based should be put in our code for certain size projects.

And so that is a requirement that has to be provided to get at potential missed impacts that would be significant for transportation and the mitigation measures that could be required of the development for that.

and we are proposing to refocus that to make sure that some of the medium-sized standalone commercial projects like a drugstore or what have you could be required to have this kind of traffic study.

That's mainly in the lower density outlying portions of the city and within the growth centers, regional centers, what we used to call urban villages may be exempt from those and if they're near major transit service areas just to sort of underscore the emphasis on growing with housing and jobs in those regional centers.

So it ties back to our large conference plan growth strategy as well.

We're also proposing to add a little bit more coverage for our historic and cultural resources reviews to cover areas that were formerly along shorelines such as the Duwamish River where there is probably an increased potential for the resources to be found uncovered in development and so we've added something to the grading code that would require or what we already do in other areas as well is if there's a potential we can require a early site visit monitoring while excavation is done and so on.

So we're just extending that in geographically and also updating it to fit with what the state of Washington has asked us to do as well to bring that up to a current policy and regulatory stance.

So and then also streamlining and underscoring a transportation mitigation plan requirement that ensures that new development provides for commuting, supportive commuting options and so on by the users of the development and the owners.

So that's the overview.

I was going to add to that.

There's one other element of this that actually it came up during the addendum to the comp plan that goes to tribal notification, which doesn't require a code update, but we have sort of outlined a process in coordination with OIR as I think part of a larger effort by both council and the mayor's office and really the statewide attention on getting tribal notification right, getting it in the format that works with our tribal partners rather than just a sort of top-down we send you a notice to tribes generally to set up a relationship with individual tribal partners to give them the information that they're focused on when it comes to where development is happening in the city.

And I'm happy to talk about that or brief it another time.

I'm reminded of one other thing we're proposing is to install in the code a construction management plan requirement.

It's something that SDOT already does as a unit that manages the construction site's areas and their traffic flow, traffic protections, and facilitates the development happening safely.

That is something that is better to add to the code to give it a little more Basis and to keep on going at a certain size of development.

So that's a new thing as well Thank you, and I know we talked about many of these things when when we had I had that extensive briefing But I think it's important for the public to hear because Obviously they were not there and these are the questions I asked and these were the answers you provided and it's helpful for the public to know the strengthening codes piece of this and also thank you for, we talked about this too, it's important to do the robust engagement with our tribal partners instead of, it's not a checkbox, it's an actual, we need to be in robust relationship with as these projects are moving forward and as we're doing this work.

So thank you for that.

Thank you, Chair.

Really appreciate indulging me, all my questions.

Thank you, Council Member.

Considering I'm not on the committee, I really appreciate it.

Absolutely, thank you for joining us.

Council Member Foster.

Excuse me.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And that was a great place to end that part of the conversation because it actually carries over into one of my questions, which is actually if you could just speak in a little bit more detail about the enhanced tribal notification and what that process looks like.

Yeah, yeah, happy to.

So again, this is an idea that came out of our response to questions that came up in the addendum to the comp plan.

So it sort of lives in parallel to this, but it is itself its own effort that we're standing up in coordination with OIR.

So the first sort of measure that we're proposing, or not proposing, we're just going to do it because we have authority within our existing codes, is a change to our standard grading plan language, which sounds like a banal, like that is a nothing burger, right?

But it is actually significant in that we want to put on notice, anyone who pulls a grading permit in the city, they have a standard plan, they submit.

That standard plan will include essentially the state authority that we would point to in SEPA, which is there are extensive state regulations about what to do in case you encounter cultural resources.

And there's an entire protocol we want to embed that into the plan requirements so that all contractors and subcontractors who have those plans are on notice of how the state regulatory authority works.

That's sort of the first measure, and that's something we can just do in an update to our plans.

The second goes to, I think Councilmember Rivera used the term relationship, it goes to our relationships with tribal partners.

One of the things that we have been working on in parallel to this through OIR is just improved tribal engagement around issues we know they're interested in, but maybe different tribal partners have different focused interests in different parts of our code or different parts of our city.

So the first thing is to designate within DPD, I'm sorry, old name, wow, within SDCI, a tribal engagement liaison.

And they would have a limited role, this is an existing personnel, no new budget authority needed, that would be the point of contact for individual tribal partners who want information about activity that's going on in the city.

So where is the work taking place?

Engagement liaison will have access to what we're creating is essentially a set of search queries that pull from all of the data we have in our permitting record so that individual tribal partners can say, I'm interested in this particular area.

I want to know all the activity that's going on.

So we can tailor those reports through relationship with those partners on what it is they're focused on.

Because again, different tribal partners have different interests areas of focus that they want to know.

And it's not just the projects that would have gone through SEPA.

They are often interested in projects that would not have come up on our radar at all.

So by letting the tribal partner identify the information that they want through sort of a poll report rather than a push report, where they're not just dumping information on tribes generally, we're specifically giving them access to data that they're interested in that's specific to an area within whatever search parameters we have within our system.

Our hope is that we will set up more of an iterative relationship where the tribes don't feel like they have to rely on this kind of perfunctory SEPA notice, but can actually have a lens into what's going on in real time.

I mean, because these data sets update every 24 hours.

So that's the program that we're standing up as part of this overall work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Foster for asking that question and Council Member Rivera as well.

Following up, David, and thank you colleagues.

I'm still feeling a little sick, so working from home today to keep everyone healthy.

Following up, I understand and I appreciate the work that SDCI is doing to include a tribal liaison so there's one point of contact.

I guess my The statement that I made to everyone in private and public as well is that the benefit of SEPA in this moment for tribal partners is that outgoing contact that there will be activity occurring at a place of land that they may have archaeological records for that we do not.

And so, David, it's not perfunctory.

It is important.

It is also my desire that we've talked about in the last few years as well of designing a program and a process which gives our tribal partners their proper notice of whether it's digging activity or even above ground, but you are correct that below ground is the most important, we still need to be giving them notification and even with these SEPA exemptions to our growth targets, which is not a full exemption, it's simply just an exemption to the growth target, we still need to find a way that requires a notification to our tribal partners without them having to come and ask us for information.

Seeing as I'm not in chambers right now, I don't need a response.

It's something that I've talked to SDCI and David before and I look forward to continue working on and thank you Council Member Foster for diving right into the meat of that important issue.

Thanks y'all.

Thank you, Councilmember Schaus.

I just have some kind of big picture questions, and I think we may have touched about on some of these last time, but, you know, today we're talking about SEPA threshold exemptions, relatively smaller projects.

We still do SEPA review for larger projects for things like our comprehensive plan or...

But one thing I just want to have a discussion about is CEPA review comes up when we are taking government action, correct?

But if we, government in action, is there CEPA review for government in action if we're not doing anything?

So, I mean, so the CEPA action that we're really talking about here is the action of issuing a permit, right?

If there is government inaction, if somebody constructs something where they did not get a permit that they should have sought, right?

Part of the remedy for them in legalizing their actions, so permitting their action, could include doing CEPA review.

There it happens after the fact.

Thank you, right.

So the permit, we're issuing a permit, that's the government action that is triggering CEPA review.

But just part of my sort of bigger picture question would be, I think about, as a parent, deeply concerned about the environment, about the climate crisis that we are all facing.

And I think about so much of this when we look at, and I'm glad that we, this committee is now gonna include the, Office of Sustainability and Environment that we are working.

We will be getting an update on our Climate Action Plan later this year from OSE.

And I do encourage members of the public to engage in that.

There will be some public engagement opportunities as we update our Climate Action Plan.

It's been about a decade.

but I think about both locally, nationally, internationally as we look at climate change and that being a result of prior actions and actions by the government but largely Just locally, I think about transportation is a number one contributor to our emissions, our transportation sector and existing buildings being number two.

But as I think about SEPA and as we are on this path towards climate, are already well on our way towards climate crisis, if we don't do anything, we basically sit on our laurels take zero action, just big picture, SEPA doesn't even ever do anything because there would be no action for us to review.

Is that correct?

Sorry, Laurel sitting is not an action under SEPA.

Correct, correct.

So us taking no action to address the climate crisis, SEPA basically never comes into play.

If we want to take affirmative action to address the climate crisis, and again, I'm speaking hypothetically kind of big picture here, But when we take action to change course, to address, you know, concerns that members of the public are raising, that is possibly, and I know, possibly when CEPRA would come into play because then we are taking action.

Would that be, yeah?

That's right.

Yeah, so there's no exemption in here that would apply to legislation, for example.

So if there is a change to a development regulation, that is something that is also subject to SEPA review, which in itself has some pros and cons.

There may be some things that the Council may want to do to impose a regulation that provides some environmental benefit.

That regulation may be subject to SEPA and Council action could be forestalled by SEPA procedural stuff, like appeals of the threshold determination on that legislation.

And that could be even if we're taking action to address an environmental concern that now this environmental procedural process could slow down us from taking action to address some concern that we're hearing from the public.

Yeah, correct.

I can give a real example of what you're talking about.

I worked with OSE on building monitoring code action that was adopted, and the overall effect of that is going to be to reduce greenhouse gases in the city by 24 percent.

which is an amazing reduction in, and it's just by sort of monitoring and leading to improvements of existing buildings, energy systems over time for the most part.

And so that's a, you know, when you take a positive action as a city, then that's really going to make the most difference, and I happen to do a CIPA review for that non-project action, so.

Thank you for that example, but if we had not taken that action to increase, to address that concern, there would have been no SEPA review.

We could have had those lower standards just continue on and no SEPA review.

Thank you, and partially the reason I wanna have this discussion is I do think it's critically important that we hear from the members of the public who care deeply about the environment.

And again, to my earlier comments, I think we all care deeply.

And I do think there are important places where we need to address these issues, whether it's in our zoning, as we think about our built environment and our comprehensive plan, whether it's in our stormwater codes, whether it's in our building standards.

These are critical areas where we can make real improvements, whether it's thinking about our right of way and whether we can increase tree canopy in public spaces.

I think about how we fund our transportation system and our buses and light rail so that people can get around in ways other than a single vehicle.

single occupancy vehicles.

I think about the toxic chemicals and tires that are harming our salmon and whether we can take action at the state level to transition to ban those harmful chemicals or do something with our stormwater system to better filter those chemicals.

And so there are a number of places where I think we absolutely can and have to take action.

And SEPA plays, I believe, some role in these larger decisions that we're making to make sure that we're not missing critical pieces of information.

I do want for the public to know that there are many other places where are perhaps better, more effective ways for us to make real progress on these critical environmental concerns that I believe we all have.

So thank you.

But if you have any other comments on that topic generally, please.

I mean, I'll just offer sort of One of the things these bills do is to sort of plug some gaps that have been identified in the final environmental impact statement.

The city has some regulatory tools for mitigating some of those impacts, and sort of just from a broader policy standpoint, one thing that is being proposed here is to is to shift some of those regulatory eggs into the TMP basket, right?

So there'll be more transportation management programs required for buildings and the city, and that is to achieve the single occupancy vehicle reduction goal that is in the comprehensive plan.

Regulation is not the only way the city achieves that SOV reduction goal, and there are plenty of other ways that are not subject to SEPA.

The city does that.

The council will be considering potential sales tax increases or renewal for the transportation benefit district this year.

That funds transit operations.

That's another way that the city tries to achieve those SOV reduction goals.

So all that is to say that sort of regulation here is not the panacea for achieving everything in the comprehensive plan.

To the extent that these bills reflect one action that the city is taking to achieve the SOV reduction goals, that is in the shift to TMPs.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Thank you so much for presenting again and for answering our wide ranging questions.

So we've discussed both bills and we'll now move and amend each bill separately starting with item one.

I have moved that the committee recommend passage of council bill 121093. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 121093 and panel, I think you're excused from further questions or unless, did you?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yes, Chair, I move to amend substitute Council Bill 121093 as presented on the recently distributed Amendment 1 version 3.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on the substitute bill.

Are there any comments on the substitute?

Chair, if I may?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

I would love if we could first hear directly from Ketel on the nature of the amendment, and then I'd like to add my remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

I'm a little bit confused on procedure here.

There's a substitute to Council Bill 121093, and then there is a substantive amendment that Council Member Rank will offer as well.

You wanted me to describe the substitute bill, is that correct?

Let's describe the substitute bill first and then go over the amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Since these bills were introduced, there have been three bills that the council has passed that have changed the base code.

The substitute does five things.

It updates the base.

There's going to be a substitute for the next bill as well, so stand by.

It updates the base code, maps and tables to reflect passage of Ordinance 127-375.

That's the ordinance that adopted the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan update.

Among other things, it changed the names of some planning geographies in the cities from things like urban center to regional center, so a lot of the changes that you'll see in the substitute are changes that reflect that new nomenclature in the code.

It updates a recital to indicate that that ordinance passed.

It clarifies language in Section 5 related to single occupancy vehicle mode share goals, which we were just discussing.

It makes a few other edits for consistency with the authorizing state legislation here.

and we've been referring to it as Senate Bill 5412. It's codified now in RCW 4321C229.

And it of course updates the signature blocks because we have a new mayor.

So that's what the substitute bill to Council Bill 121093 would do.

Okay.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute bill?

Councilmember Strauss.

Aye.

Councilmember Rink.

Yes.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Chair Lynn.

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor, zero against.

Okay, so the motion carries and the substitute bill is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Chair.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Now that we've taken action on the substitute, I'm going to move my amendment to the underlying bill.

Thank you, Council Member Rankin.

Before we consider Amendment 1, I understand the published agenda includes Amendment 1, Version 2. and council member Rank has a new version for consideration today, which is amendment one version three.

So the rules will need to be suspended before we can consider the new version because while the original version of the amendment was properly distributed more than 24 hours in advance of this meeting, the updated version of the amendment was finalized yesterday afternoon within the 24 hour period.

So if there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to consider amendment one version three.

Hearing no objection, the rules are suspended.

We will proceed with the Amendment 1, Version 3. Council Member Rink, you're recognized to move the amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121093 as presented on the recently distributed Amendment 1, Version 3.

Second.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to amend the bill.

Council Member Rink is sponsor.

You are recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to first ask Ketel to brief the committee on the amendment.

Sure, so Amendment 1, Version 3, we have up here, this is the version that was distributed yesterday, yesterday evening.

This amendment would reduce the threshold for SEPA review for non-accessory flexible use parking to 20 spaces from the proposed 90 spaces in all zones except for industrial and maritime zones where the 90 parking stall threshold would remain.

It would establish a separate threshold of 90 stalls which would be applicable in industrial and maritime zones and it would update current and proposed language to describe parking specifically replacing principal use parking with flexible use parking and also eliminating a term lot largely for clarity because the threshold would apply regardless of whether it was surface parking or structured parking.

Thank you.

Are there any comments on Amendment 1 version 3?

Chair, I'd like to share my remarks at this time.

Colleagues, this amendment makes some changes in order to achieve a singular goal of not exempting unnecessary parking from SEPA review.

Firstly, it changes the type of parking in this legislation.

This legislation targets from primary use to flexible use parking.

Flexible use parking is paid parking to the public.

It is not accessory to a principal use or employee parking.

An example includes a paid parking garage that makes money through daily public use.

Secondly, the number of parking stalls that are exempt from environmental review is changed to 20 stalls.

And thirdly, a whereas clause is added to provide clarity to the SDCI director that a director's rule may be needed in cases to ensure the intent of this amendment is met.

The amendment includes an exemption for industrial lands, which is to align with the intent of this amendment, not having to do with those type of projects.

And the reason I'm bringing this amendment forward is to ensure our environmental goals aren't being put aside to promote more parking without proper review.

Our city's biggest source of emissions comes from transportation and single occupancy vehicles are a large share of that.

They're the culprit.

and I want to be clear that I support this legislation holistically because exempting housing from CEPA just simply makes sense.

That's because we know when we build more housing and we're building in Seattle, the environment is better off because we're reducing sprawl and reliance on cars.

but I don't believe we should be clearing the way for more parking, especially flexible use parking, to exempt from environmental review.

And as we go into discussion on this amendment, I'd like to ask Kietel if he can explain on the record the differences between flexible use and principal use parking.

Oh, yeah, so that's getting very happy to do it.

I may ask SDCI to chime in here.

That's getting somewhat into the weeds.

They're both defined terms in the code.

Principal use parking is an older term that was used to describe, to distinguish parking that was a principal use, so paid parking from parking that was maybe an accessory, that was an accessory use.

So if you have, say for example, a Walgreens and you have parking for your customers, that parking is accessory use parking, that's not principal use parking.

Principal use parking sort of went away as a term in almost all areas of the city a few years ago when the council updated its parking regulations.

and is now flexible use parking.

So flexible use parking is the term that used to describe principal use parking.

Principal use parking is a term that is used in the code, but it applies largely in our shoreline district, so it's still a term that applies there.

and this is where it gets maybe a little bit weedy here.

There are land use code terms, but this is not actually the land use code.

This is the SEPA code, and so there's not necessarily a one-for-one correspondence and definitions.

Flexible use parking is arguably the term that should be used here because it is the closest thing to what principal use parking used to be, but that's the distinction.

I agree with that assessment and principal use parking in the code should only be applicable to shoreline areas at this point and back in 2018 we made the intended full swap from principal use to flexible use parking in the land use code and yeah this may be a leftover phrase here that can be amended

Thank you all, and colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 1, Version 3?

Council Member Strasse.

Sorry, we did not catch that.

Council Member Strasse?

Council Member Foster?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Chair Lynn?

Yes.

Chair, there are four in favor, zero opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Amendment one version three is adopted.

Any other comments on the bill as amended?

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass Council Bill 121093 as amended.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Council Member Foster?

Yes.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Chair Lynn?

Yes.

Chair there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you colleagues.

The motion carries in committee recommendation that the council pass legislation will be sent to the February 10th, 2026 city council meeting.

Moving on.

I move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 121-135.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of Council Bill 121-135.

Are there any questions or comments?

Okay.

I moved to amend Council Bill 121-135 as presented on the substitute bill.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on the substitute bill.

Any comments on the substitute?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute bill.

Vice Chair Starrs.

Aye.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council Member Rink.

Yes.

Chair Lynn.

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you, the motion carries and the substitute bill is adopted.

Any further comments on the bill as amended?

Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121135 as presented on Amendment 1 version 2.

Or second.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill.

Council Member Rink, as sponsor, you are recognized to address the amendment.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Again, I'd like to ask if Ketel could brief the amendment for the committee.

Thank you.

So just by way of background and to bring up the subject of TMPs again, one thing that Council Bill 121-135 would do would be to eliminate some requirements that are currently in to consolidate requirements for TMPs in a new section.

Current places where TMPs are currently required, you will see that language truck, and there is a new section with the new TMP requirements.

those TMP requirements set thresholds above which TMPs would be required.

So Councilmember Rink's amendment would modify those thresholds above which transportation management programs are required for non-residential uses by counting floor area and non-required accessory parking towards the threshold above which TMPs are required.

So in many areas of the city, there is no required accessory parking So if a development, if a non-residential development or mixed-use development chooses to provide non-required parking, that floor area would count towards the TMP threshold.

Thank you.

Any comments on Amendment 1?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that briefing, Ketel.

Colleagues, with transportation impact assessments requirements changing for buildings once we pass this legislation, we're working to ensure that transportation management plans are able to be enacted without rollback.

By linking TMPs to square footage rather than the no longer existing TIAs, we can uphold the status quo.

TMPs are a regulatory mechanism to achieve the single occupancy vehicle reductions we're aiming for in the recently passed comp plan.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Rink.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment one?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Aye.

Council member Foster?

Yes.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Chair Lynn?

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, so the motion carries.

Amendment one is adopted.

Any other comments on the bill as amended?

Okay, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to pass council bill 121-135 as amended?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Councilmember Foster?

Yes.

Councilmember Rink?

Yes.

Chair Linton?

Yes.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries the committee recommendation that council Bass bill as amended will be sent to the February 10th, 2026 city council meeting.

So we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Thank you again to the members of the public and to our presenters.

Our next meeting is Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 at 9 30 AM.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Okay, hearing no further business, come from the beginning, we are adjourned at 1054 AM.

Thank you.