Seattle City Council Planning, Land Use & Zoning Committee 71719

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is the July 17, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Plus Committee meeting.

We'll now come to order.

It's now 9.38 a.m.

I'm Abel Pacheco, chair of the committee, and I'm joined by Councilmember Herbold.

We have three items on the agenda today, a briefing from OPCD, OED, SDOT, and the mayor's office on the work plan for industrial lands.

a briefing and public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment docketing process, and a briefing from SCCI on the permit backlog.

The next regularly scheduled PLEZ meeting is on Wednesday, August 7, starting at 9.30 a.m.

here in Council Chambers.

Before we begin, is there no objection to today's agenda?

Today's agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, today's agenda is adopted.

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

We have 10 minutes today for public comment.

If you wish to speak to agenda item two, the comprehensive plan docketing process, Please reserve your comments for the public hearing on that item.

Speakers are limited to two minutes of public comment.

If a speaker's comment exceeds the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by identifying themselves and the agenda item that they wish to address.

As a reminder, public comment is limited to the items that are on the agenda or within the purview of the committee.

It's my understanding that there are folks who might have signed up on the wrong list.

And so if that is the case and you are here for the public hearing, just let me know and I'll make sure that you're added to the public hearing list.

So first on our list is Stuart McFeely.

And next is Charlene Boyd.

Yes, I'm here to talk about the backlog of permitting at the Seattle Building Department.

I've been a licensed architect in Seattle for 27 years.

I file about 10 permits a year with the city.

And I want to compliment all of the staff in the city building department, but the system is totally broken.

The ability to get a permit is degraded over the last five years, and they've blamed a lot of it on the new operating system implemented about two years ago, but it goes back before that.

And part of it is that we keep adopting new codes, like the new ADU and DADU codes are great, and the new FAR is questionable, You don't we don't go back and then correct what's wrong in the building code or the land use code there is in the land use code You can't build a front porch in your front yard Because that code goes back before any of us were probably born so I would the other thing is It's very, I'm a licensed professional, people almost have to hire me to get a permit for a DAWDU or an ADU.

And it's very difficult for the average homeowner to come in and have the ability to get a permit to do an accessory dwelling unit.

And part of it is the attitude of the building department, and this is really true of S.2.

They're looking for ways to not allow you to get a permit as opposed to saying, hey, that's a great idea.

Let's figure out how we'll get you the permit.

They always look for some part of the building code or land use code that will prevent you from getting the permit that day.

They need to expedite permitting for applicants if they're going to adopt new DADU and ADU regulations.

Expedite the permit process for people.

Thank you.

Charlene Boyd?

I signed the wrong list.

No, that's Mayor Royer.

This is Charlene Boyd.

Yeah, I said I signed up on the wrong list.

I'm speaking to the stadium.

I called a different name.

Charlene Boyd?

Yes.

Boyd.

Boyd.

Sorry.

Good morning.

Morning.

My name is Charlene Boyd.

I'm the administrator of Providence Mount St. Vincent in Seattle, Washington for the last 20 years.

Providence Mount St. Vincent, frequently known as the Mount, is owned and operated by the Providence St. Joseph Health System.

I want to describe a little bit about the site.

The site is comprised of nine acres, built in 1924 to serve older adults and religious community, the Sisters of Providence.

The building has been altered over time with the last major interior renovation in the 1990s, but yet the basic footprint has not changed.

Today, this vibrant not-for-profit organization includes skilled nursing, transitional care, a short stay, assisted living, a Pace Center, independent living, and a Sisters of Providence retirement community, including a wellness clinic, health care providers, and an internationally recognized intergenerational child care program.

Our public spaces for the community includes a library, a chapel, a thrift shop, a gift shop, conference spaces, outpatient therapy services, home health, hospice, and other community programs.

Summer concerts are also very popular with our neighborhood community during the month of August with over 500 people each Friday night.

So daily, we serve over 400 residents, patients, and clients, and an enrollment of 125 children with over 500 employees and 125 children.

and 200 community volunteers.

In our transitional care unit, we rehab over 900 people annually to return to the West Seattle community.

We partner with our universities and other schools to help train future nurses, nursing assistants, social workers, and other healthcare providers.

Our funding sources include Medicaid, Medicare, and private pay with our philanthropy organization providing assistance for those in financial need.

We are definitely an integral part of the West Seattle community for the last 95 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And again, if you are here for the comprehensive plan public hearing, we, I have your, uh, the signup sheet.

Um, and so we will allow, I will allow time for, uh, those speakers to speak then.

One other speaker to talk.

Correct.

But so I, if it's okay, I would like to just.

Correct, and so I would like to just put the speakers for that public hearing when we get to the action item and we open a public hearing for the comp plan.

Docketing process, that's okay.

I believe next on my list that's for the agenda item is Steve Robstello.

Speaking globally on zoning, You continue to keep us people out of the process.

I'm sorry that Mike isn't here today, because I was surprised a couple of meetings ago after which Mike spoke to me for the first time in the last two or three years.

Because we disagree on land use, so therefore I'm a non-person.

One of the reasons why I attend these meetings.

And I think it's an assault on democracy, quite frankly, You have been acting very similar to our dear leader, Mr. Trump.

If people disagree with you, then you are out of the process.

I see very little of what's going on here until the very last minute.

You get a minute or two to comment, and many people in the city are not really happy.

Now you look at design review and part of the big problem is you're taking people out of the system.

In design review, we used to be able to look at the building to see if it really fit.

If it was on the edge of the zone, we would not necessarily go to the same far as if you were in the middle of a zone.

And what we're seeing is a continual movement to move people out of the process.

When I was young, we celebrated the differences in our neighborhoods.

Now, we are destroying them.

Because look at all the new buildings.

It doesn't matter where it goes.

It looks pretty much the same in Ballard, Greenwood, Seward Park, Dell Ridge.

It doesn't really make much difference.

And neither do the people who live there.

You know, you talk about your care for people of color, your care for divergent incomes.

Look at your MHA and what you've passed.

You're suppressing all of these things.

Thank you.

So just to be clear, I'm going to move these names to the public hearing.

John Persak, sorry, Jeremy Pong, John Persak, Sarah Cameron, and Barrett Erickson.

Okay, is there anyone that would like to speak to the agenda items one and three?

comp plan?

Okay, we'll get to the comp plan during the public hearing.

If there is no objection, the public comment period will be, oh, sorry, now that there's no one that's spoke, well, we'll move on to the first item of business.

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

Agenda item one, industrial lands work plan update.

I'll do this more.

Would folks at the table please introduce themselves?

Chase Kitchen from the Mayor's Office.

Bobby Lee, OED.

Sam Assefa, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Jeff Wendland, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Diane Weider, Seattle Department of Transportation.

Great.

And would you kick us off?

Thanks for having us down today.

We are very proud to be here to discuss the Mayor's vision for The city's efforts to give the industrial, maritime, and manufacturing sectors the best opportunity to succeed and promote diverse family-way jobs is a key component of those sectors.

I'll be joined by my colleagues, obviously, here from OED, OPCD, and SDOT.

But before they jump into their detailed components of the work, I thought it might make sense for us to provide a quick overview of what we're interested in doing and why we're interested in doing it.

The mayor is proud that our success as a city is deeply tied to the industries that prosper here.

Our industrial maritime sectors are an important contributor to the city's identity, supporting family wage jobs, and promoting economic diversity.

And the city's industrial areas are undergoing some positive economic developments, illustrated by growth rates in industrial rents that were the highest in the world between 2016 and 2017. They're also illustrated by the significant investments that the Port of Seattle is making in their facilities.

Economic conditions in the city, however, continue to support average rental rates for commercial space that are about three times higher than those for industrial rents, which creates a significant pressure to reuse industrial lands for other uses.

The last few years we've seen several other catalysts for further change and creating additional pressure.

This includes the Port of Seattle's plans to modernize Terminal 46 to include a cruise ship berth on the northern third of the terminal, which will be capable of holding the world's largest cruise ships.

We've got a proposal for creating a stadium district with a mix of uses in the area, including housing and hotels.

Sound Transit is processing the development for new light rail stations in Ballard, Interbay, and Soto.

You've got the state's plans for reusing the armory site in Interbay.

All of this is occurring while impacts of climate change continue to accelerate, and our city's industrial areas face acute risk from rising sea levels, increased floods, and extreme heat.

So the mayor is committed to building a strong and diverse economy by improving our position as a gateway for global trade.

for increasing family way jobs in the maritime and manufacturing sectors.

And she thinks it's important for us to address all of these individual decisions as part of a comprehensive and deliberate process that gives us the best opportunity to plan for the future.

While the city's existing policies establish strong protections for areas of the city that currently house industrial uses, it's been over a decade since we've updated those policies on a significant level, and we think there's an opportunity to, you know, build a comprehensive strategy to strengthen and grow Seattle's industrial areas for the future.

And I think perhaps the biggest and most important component of our approach is a desire to grow the inclusive family wage jobs that are part of these sectors, which I know Bobby is very eager to talk to us about.

We pretty much paraphrased everything I was going to say.

No, that's exactly right.

The letter indicates, and we all worked to help draft the mayor's letter, so a lot of us included, so I'll keep my comment short and to the point.

The ultimate question around industrial lands from a public policy standpoint is ultimately who benefits?

Who benefits from the industrial lands?

And the position that OAD stands along with the mayor and other colleagues here on the table is that it should be a platform for inclusive economy to ensure that we have underserved population have a gateway to the middle wage jobs.

So medium, the industrial lands really should be about that.

It is an economic development tool for underserved population to gain middle wage jobs.

In the last five years, the manufacturing sector has declined by 4%.

In the longitudinal study, it's pretty clear that Seattle is a knowledge-based economy.

But the cost of having such a dominant economy, the knowledge-based economy, is that we have not paid a whole lot of attention on the middle-wage job, the blue-collar, the industrial-related manufacturing jobs.

And so the public policy question for the city is, is that important value?

And if so, then it should be reflected on our industrial, I mean, in terms of our comp plan.

So I'll leave my comments there, and then if there are specific questions, I'm happy to dive in.

Thank you.

So Sam Safar again from OPCD.

In this phase of the work, the primary focus is a very close relationship and working relationship with OED.

in a way that economic analysis that looks at what the future of industrial lands are going to be in terms of job creating uses and how do we tie the land use regulations to actually support that.

The slight difference from, if you recall, the last effort here is the mayor has emphasized that we need to focus on middle wage jobs in that.

The analysis that we do as well as the regulations, incentives that we create through land use policies, that is the North Star.

We looked at, you know, a number of issues at the last time that we, in the last scope.

This one is very much focused in that area.

So the primary work from the land use perspective that my office would be coordinating with OED and SDOT would be One, a very quick initial economic analysis that really tells us what the future is going to be like.

The previous analysis we put a baseline data of what we have today.

That was, you know, a couple of years ago when we did the economic analysis that OED conducted.

So we are going to update that.

We want to understand where the future industry and job creating types of users are, and then embed very strongly racial equity lens as part of that conversation that we make sure that we promote, as Bobby said, inclusive industrial economy and inclusive jobs.

So what that means is we need to really have a robust focus on the analysis that the data and information that we get.

Then we use that to help inform the land use decisions, zoning, or incentives that we create.

A major component of that work would also be the environmental impact statement and some of the analysis from the economic study then will help us shape a wide range of options so that you, decision makers, could have choices and you're informed by those range of uses throughout the EIS or environmental impact statement study.

And then concurrent with that and working not only with SDOT, but with OED and other sister departments, we want to explore what it means to be resilient in an industrial land area from an environmental perspective, while we're also addressing a number of the other job-related uses.

Again, so the major focus of that will be strengthening, through our land use code, zoning and incentives to understand how we support Seattle's industrial and maritime sectors of the future, not just only today.

And as I mentioned, promote an inclusive industrial economy.

And then a major component from a land use perspective would also be to inform industrial land use decisions that you will be making.

as part of the comprehensive plan amendments and other decisions.

And primarily, you know, some of the proposed stadium overlay districts, which you will hear from some of the proponents.

The armory site in Interbay is a major play, so we need to have Again, a comprehensive strategy to decide how we address those issues.

The ports transition on Terminal 46 into a cruise ship berth, that would have a major impact along the edge of the waterfront.

We want to have, we want to look at that and through that comprehensive strategy.

And then, as Chase mentioned, And the station areas that will be created within the industrial area as part of SC3, those will have a major impact.

The simple act of actually creating station area and industrial area without any zoning changes in and of by itself is a major transformation in terms of will impact the area.

So we need to get ahead of it and to understand what do we need to put in place as guardrails as well as taking advantage of that.

infrastructure.

So that's kind of sort of a high-level overview of the work that we'll be coordinating.

And of course, SDOT will be part of that.

Diane will just briefly tell you sort of some of the work.

Transportation is going to be very integral, especially, you know, in freight movement and other activities within the industrial area.

Thanks, Sam.

Again, I'm Diane Weider with SDOT, I'm in policy and planning, and I'm the project manager for SDOT on this project.

And of course, anytime we're talking about growing jobs and changing land use, we need to be thinking about transportation as an integral part of it.

We will be looking at our previous planning efforts, like the Freight Master Plan, as well as current planning efforts and the places where growth is happening.

There's recently been A Magnolia Bridge study, a Ballard Bridge study is in process.

The state legislature dedicated $700,000 for us to do Ballard and Interbay regional transportation system study, and that will be part of this as well.

We will be looking at not just the movement of goods and freight and delivery, but we will also be looking at access to jobs, taking into consideration ST3 station access and how people will be moving in a whole new way once the light rail system has been built out.

Have you identified the specific stakeholders who are going to be involved in the process, the timeline for this, and when you anticipate to come up with the policy recommendations?

We're working on finalizing the details to that, but I will say that one of the things that we're very interested in doing is making sure that we're drawing forward or drawing out some community ideas on this issue.

So in previous efforts, I think there were just one large citywide panel of stakeholders that helped inform the city's decision.

We are interested in having a citywide stakeholder panel, but I think we're also very interested in forming some community led stakeholders, right, so we'll have some folks take a look at the specific issues around the stadium in Soto, in Interbay, I think down in Georgetown and South Park as well, and Ballard is kind of our thinking at the moment, so.

So in the timeline, and when do you think, is that still kind of?

I think it's still kind of up in the air, but I think this kind of work is going to take a significant amount of time, right?

So I could see us finalizing some of this work early next year or into the early summer next year.

And how do you envision collaborating with the council or a future council?

We would love to have you guys a part of this, especially as we're formulating ideas and doing our stakeholder outreach and stuff.

I think we would love your participation in that process.

Council Member Hobo?

Thank you.

So this is really helpful.

I appreciate folks all coming together, letting us know what your plan is moving forward.

Just to touch a little bit on the history of this effort.

I think everybody knows that in 2016, the council passed a I'm interested to know if there is a plan docketing resolution that requested a group of stakeholders come together and make some recommendations.

Likewise in 2017 the Council repeated that request.

We actually got some draft recommendations in I think 2016. Are we starting from a place where we had come to before, or are we just starting from sort of square one?

And I don't say so.

I just want to get a sense of where we're at.

I'm not trying to rush the process.

I really understand the care with which You're engaging in these conversations.

Almost a fifth of Seattle jobs are manufacturing jobs.

And there's average, as the mayor stated in her letter, average wage of $100,000.

And this is an industry that we want to show.

great care for because of its place in our city's history and the importance that it has given to our city's economic resiliency.

But nevertheless, there is a long history of the council and stakeholders wanting to get a sense of where we're going with these issues in recognition that There are a lot of needs for this particular industry and what we can do using our land use code to strengthen it.

Thank you, Council Member.

That's a great question, right?

You know, I think we are taking a look at this in a way that we want to use those previous efforts to inform what we're doing and to build on them.

I think from our perspective, a lot of things have happened since those last outreach happens, right?

I mean, we talked about a few of them, right?

Terminal 46, the Stadium District, the Armory, right?

So those previous efforts are certainly going to inform and will be engaging people who were in those previous processes, right?

So that's going to inform their thinking today.

I think we just want to make sure that we're doing this in a comprehensive manner that reflects today's world and not 2016.

And when you mentioned earlier in response to Councilmember Pacheco's question about the composition of the group, I understand that you're going to be doing some broader stakeholder engagement in addition to you know, what we usually consider the stakeholders to this discussion.

Will that, will those stakeholders be integrated into this larger work group or is that going to be a separate?

a separate engagement effort.

And what can you tell us about, like, is there actually going to be a workgroup pulled together?

How many people are going to sit on the workgroup?

Who are they going to be?

Will you share that with us in advance of the convening?

Yeah, I think we should certainly work together on that, right?

These are things that are going to impact your communities, and we should make sure we partner on those things.

I think I would say at this point in time, our perspective, our goal here is to make sure we've got both the traditional industrial stakeholders, non-industrial stakeholders, and some community members involved in this process, right?

I think we should make sure we're working together to partner.

Just to add to that, one of our initial start in this process has been really to ask and learn from what worked and what didn't from the last process.

And we've already learned some lessons from that.

And I think you alluded to sort of a single community advisory group or committee.

And one of the things that we learned is that we really need to think about the diversification of the stakeholder groups or community groups, in part because, you know, Ballard is different from Interbay, it's different from the Duwamish, it's different from the Sodo.

So how do we think about, you know, strategically in terms of how we see those geographic areas, even though they're industrial, and then industrial lands, and then relevance to that, who are the right, appropriate way of engaging communities in those areas.

And then the second, I think, major difference is the mayor has set sort of a very clear north star in terms of what the primary objective of this ought to be, what we discussed earlier.

So those two will shape our engagement process.

So it does sound to me that this is not going to be pulling together a group of folks saying, hey, here are the 2016 draft recommendations.

Do these still work?

It sounds like we are really going to be doing a full new set of reviews and analysis of some of the economic policies and land use analyses and racial equity analysis.

We're starting all over, it sounds like, not going back to the group saying, hey, this is where we left off.

Do you still agree with these draft recommendations?

Could I address that a little bit?

I think the important thing is that We will build on those previous recommendations.

So there were some great ideas that came out of the last round of work around mix of uses and potential around station areas kind of in a sub-portion of SOTO.

Those ideas will be one of...

a range of possible future scenarios that would be studied.

So decision makers will have a wider range and really understand the implications on economic development and jobs and resiliency of that concept alongside, you know, other policy directions you could take.

Are there any further points?

Seeing none.

Well, thank you all for joining us for the discussion.

We look forward to seeing more about this work, learning more about this work in future discussions.

Thank you.

Our next item is a briefing discussion and public hearing on the annual comp plan amendment docketing setting resolution.

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

Agenda item two, comprehensive plan amendment docket setting.

Just to be clear for everyone watching, the conversation we're kicking off today is about which amendments we would be docketing for consideration next year.

We are not making any changes to the actual comprehensive plan.

We're just queuing up decisions for the next council.

For people here to testify, we're going to begin as usual with briefing and discussion on the proposed amendments, and then open the public hearing following that discussion.

Would folks around the table please introduce themselves?

Michael Hubner, Long-Range Planning Manager, Office of Planning and Community Development.

Jim Holmes, OPCD.

Liz Schwitzen, Council of Central Staff.

Vanessa Murdock, Executive Director of the Seattle Planning Commission.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Eric McConaghy on the Council of Central Staff.

So we're here today to brief you on the proposals that Council received to amend the Comprehensive Plan as part of the 2019-2020 docketing process.

As a reminder, we have a period between April and May when we accept proposals from members of the public to consider changes to the comprehensive plan.

Those are reviewed by the Seattle Planning Commission and the Office of Planning and Community Development and central staff.

And you have recommendations attached to our staff memo from SPC, from the Planning Commission and from OPCD.

Then we're in the docket setting phase where the council decides which of the proposed amendments should go forward for further analysis.

The council's action, as Council Member Pacheco mentioned, is not to say, yes, this is something that we want to adopt, but rather this is something that is worth studying more based on criteria that have been set through a resolution.

Once the resolution is adopted, the Office of Planning and Community Development will analyze the docketed proposals, undertake environmental review, and make a recommendation by the end of the year.

And then first quarter of 2020, the Planning Commission and Council will review the OPCD recommendations.

There are seven criteria that we use to analyze whether or not a proposal should be docketed.

First is, is it legal?

Is it appropriate for the comprehensive plan or is it better for, for example, a code amendment or some other, or a rezone?

Is it practical to consider it?

Is it both?

Is there capacity to analyze the proposal?

Is it something that is such a fundamental policy change that's better taken up as part of our more holistic look at the comprehensive plan as part of our major updates to the plan?

If it's been proposed before, have circumstances changed and has the proponent shown that there is a reason to take up the question again?

If it's a change to a neighborhood plan, has there been work done with the local community?

Is the proposal actually going to result in some sort of change?

If it's not, then maybe it's not worth spending staff time to look at it.

And finally, if it's a proposal to change maps in the plan rather than policies, Is it at a scale that merits a comprehensive plan amendment or is it something where the proponent can just pursue a site-specific rezone?

Council has adopted a number of resolutions.

Council Member Herbold mentioned a couple of them related to industrial lands.

From our perspective, those remain open without a final recommendation from the executive.

Earlier this year, the council adopted a resolution related to the mandatory housing affordability program.

And there were three amendments that, as part of the resolution of follow-up items, the council asked OPCD to look at changing the name of single family areas in the comp plan.

looking at whether South Park really meets our criteria for urban village designation and looking at a new urban village at 130th and I-5 near the light rail station.

And then alongside the Delridge action plan, the Delaware's community identified a number of changes to their neighborhood plan that came out of that community-driven process, and so looking at those changes to the Delaware's neighborhood plan.

And the executive has some responses to those things, and Michael, I don't know if you want to talk about that now or...

to the prior resolutions?

I'd be happy to, yes.

So first and most important to highlight the prior resolved request with regard to the Delridge Action Plan and recommended amendments to the Delridge Neighborhood Plan, which is in the Comprehensive Plan.

So this was a long process involving very robust community involvement and engagement.

That action plan did address a number of issues, including proposed recommendations to the neighborhood plan to reflect that work.

So it meets the criteria for consideration of changes to the neighborhood plan.

It is something that is worth analyzing and bringing back a final proposal based on those recommendations to you as part of this docketing cycle.

So we are recommending moving forward with that one.

With respect to the resolution covering industrial lands, actually several prior resolutions that allude to a number of different issues.

First, any changes to the policy language in the comprehensive plan relating to any clarifications of the criteria or process whereby changes to a manufacturing industrial center, industrial land use, would be considered.

And then in addition to that, specific amendments to the future land use map, including potentially a stadium district, which again is echoed in one of the 14 proposals submitted this year, but also some prior proposals related to specific properties in Interbay and also in the greater Duwamish MIC.

And lastly, the armory site.

So all of these were in play previously.

And as was described to you in the prior item, we do have a process that is kicking off to consider in a much more holistic way our industrial lands policies.

And we feel at this time that docketing those within this cycle does not align well with what is anticipated with that work.

both in terms of where that will be considered and what process those would be considered within, both any policy changes or any future land use changes, but also in terms of timing.

As staff indicated, we don't anticipate recommendations coming out of that process until at least into the early part of next year, if not mid-2020, which would be beyond the timeframe that you would be considering these docketed amendments this year.

And then finally, the MHA-related amendments, the renaming of the single family zoning or single family land use in the comprehensive plan.

We feel that that is a big question and the name in and of itself absent considering what that might mean for land use policies that relate to We're going to now call our single-family areas, which might in that case have a different name in the future, that that is a question that would be much better addressed in the context of a more holistic look at our growth strategy and at the comprehensive plan in the future.

an appropriate question or considered amendment within the annual amendment process, which typically would have more isolated, more smaller scale questions with regard to something as fundamental as what we would call a large part of our city and land use designations.

Thank you.

Can you point us to the policy that makes that distinction between the annual review process and that speaks to this idea that in the annual comp plan review process where we are supposed to be looking at smaller, more distinct changes as opposed to larger policy-based changes that affect multiple areas.

Well, it's not a policy per se, but rather the criteria that were adopted by the council itself.

Off the top of my head, Alicia probably remember the number that relates to the criteria, but you have indicated that if there was another process other than the annual member process that a proposal would be better suited to be addressed within, that that would be a criteria for recommending not to docket a proposal.

One of the way we think about that with respect to the difference between the annual amendment and the major update of the comprehensive plan is the respect to which a proposal is relates to other policies and other aspects of the plan that are not part of the proposal itself.

So this would be one of those where it relates to other policies in the plan that are not part of the proposal and thus will be much better suited to be addressed in a more integrated way as part of the comprehensive plan update.

So I should be looking at the criteria for the criteria that the council adopted itself.

Back of the Planning Commission's letter.

All right.

Thank you.

And so there are a couple of other aspects to the MHA amendments.

One of them as well is looking at South Park and the data and other considerations regarding South Park and its alignment with the criteria for urban villages in the plan.

As part of the major update, again, we anticipate looking at the growth strategy in a more holistic way, including looking at data related to all of our urban villages and centers.

And this would be a question in terms of which set of villages and centers should move on into the future, which we better address in that process in a more holistic way.

With respect, finally, to the 130th light rail station, we have a community planning process, a station area planning process underway right now that is looking at a range of alternatives for that station area, and we do anticipate that The prospect of a new urban village being designated around 130th Street Station, it would be one of those ideas that would be evaluated through that process, but it's just not timely at this point to put it on the docket for this cycle.

Again, we don't anticipate that that work will have concluded in time for consideration in the early part of 2020.

Thank you.

As it relates to the requested docketing for South Park and whether or not it should be classified as an urban village under current urban village criteria, I just want to say back what I think I heard you said.

What you're saying is that we should not ask and try to answer the question whether or not South Park is properly designated as an urban village under the current urban village criteria because we are going to be in the future re-evaluating whether or not the existing urban village criteria are the right ones for all urban villages?

No, I wasn't necessarily saying that we would be within the scope of the major update considering changes to the criteria themselves, but rather the criteria relate to both quantitative and qualitative considerations.

the original designations were made for each of the urban villages and urban centers, and that an analysis of any individual urban village at this time is much better addressed with respect to how other villages also relate to those criteria that are currently in the plan.

Now, the major update may indeed address updating or revising those criteria, but even if those criteria didn't change, it is much more of an across-the-board evaluation of how our centers are performing and whether any changes might be within the scope of the plan update rather than just looking at one.

So you're suggesting that other urban villages have a question of whether or not they're properly classified as urban villages?

I haven't heard that.

This is a problem in South Park.

I've not heard that about other urban villages in

We haven't done the analysis, is essentially the status of the work right now.

And looking at one urban village in isolation is not what we think is the appropriate way to address that question.

Rather, it is with regard to the urban villages as a whole.

I'm going to continue to ask some questions about this as we move forward.

Thank you.

All right, so the council received 14 proposals to amend the comprehensive plan from members of the public, and we split them into map amendments and policy amendments to sort of help focus discussion.

There are five proposed map amendments, two new policy ideas, and seven policy amendments that have been previously proposed.

Those proposals, the applicant didn't demonstrate a changed circumstance, so they do not meet the criteria and we're not going to focus on them.

The five MAP amendments, Eric's going to talk about.

I'll just walk us through these slides.

So you see the numbering 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12. Those refer to the numbers that were assigned to the amendments as they were submitted.

And there's a few different tables, one in attachment to the memo and also in the clerk file.

So that's just to clarify that if folks were to jump into the video record here and wonder what our novel numbering system, it just refers to the numbers used as names of these amendments.

So there's five total.

The map on the, oh, maybe I'll just take a moment.

The map on the right just shows the kind of the distribution of them around town.

Number two up north, and then the other four kind of a little bit, just one just adjacent to downtown, that's the stadium area, and then the other is kind of more in West Seattle.

Amendment one, this asks for a change of the flume from low rise one to low rise three.

This is, as you can see, 4501 and 4509 Southwest Admiral Way.

Amendment two would ask to extend the Northgate Urban Center to encompass these parcels, to bump it out a little bit.

This is a single family to multifamily change.

Amendment number six asks to amend the future land use map from single family to multifamily for this property addressed on Alki Avenue Southwest.

The number seven would establish a stadium district, these new boundaries as shown in the dashed blue lines on the right hand side that's submitted with the proposal.

And also would make some policy changes.

Goal number one, to establish the district.

And two, to allow residential and lodging throughout the district.

Three, to recognize the stadium district as a 24-7 neighborhood and to support the continued success of industrial operations in the Duwamish Manufacturing Industrial Center, sometimes called the MIC.

And finally, the fifth amendment that deals with future land use map is for the Providence Mountain Saint Vincent property.

This would amend the boundaries of the West Seattle Junction Urban Village.

Can you speak to a little more history and context to this particular amendment?

Yeah, so recently with the changes, the boundary of this urban village came right up against this property but did not encompass it, and so the blue that you see is the boundary of the urban village, and this change would encompass that property, and by having the property in the urban village, it would make it possible to do different things with the property.

So there are two policy amendments.

The first would be to amend the transportation element related to TNCs and delivery trucks to provide significantly more detail regarding those modes of transportation.

And the second is to amend policies in the transportation environment and parks and open space elements related to trees and the definition of the urban forest.

Our staff recommendation is to docket the change to the Northgate Urban Center boundary and the Providence Mount St. Vincent change to the West Seattle Junction boundary.

to dock at the stadium district in the context of the ongoing industrial lands work.

There has been a previous stadium district proposal.

The proposal that was proposed this year would more broadly allow residential uses throughout the stadium district.

Our recommendation would be that the team that's working on industrial lands consider both of those proposals.

in the context of broader industrial lands policies.

And not to docket the remaining amendments, as the policy changes are more detailed.

than we would normally see in the comprehensive plan and are probably addressed better by specific changes to, for example, our street use policies, our freight master plan, and through changes to regulations relating to trees rather than the comp plan amendment.

Council Member Herbold?

Yeah, thank you.

I'm fairly certain that we were aiming for this annual review to include docketing the project list, the recommended project list associated with moving forward a proposal for impact fees, transportation impact fees.

And I know that our project list was challenged and it was supposed to be heard.

The hearing examiners, just wondering where that is and whether or not we can expect to consider that in this docketing process.

I seem to recall that the planning commission had indicated earlier that it was supportive.

The hearing examiner hearing happened earlier this month, so we're waiting for the results.

We are exploring whether those amendments could be taken up alongside the budget.

The Growth Management Act allows for amendments to the Capital Improvement Program, which is related to the, which is technically part of the Comprehensive Plan to occur during the budgeting process.

So it's possible that those would come up this fall during budgeting process, otherwise they would probably be considered next year.

Are you saying that because we're not expecting to get an answer from the hearing examiner in time for our time frame for considering this particular resolution that we'll need to act on by mid-August?

So generally, the Growth Management Act only allows the comp plan to be amended once a year.

That happened this past spring alongside the mandatory housing affordability for next year.

So it's possible that the impact fee-related amendments would happen this fall.

Otherwise, they could happen next year.

Could we cover our bases, though, by queuing them up in this resolution for next year as sort of a fallback if we're not able to move forward in the budget process, which, of course, I would support.

But I think there's a little bit that we don't know yet.

Sure.

OK.

Thank you.

So in the past, I know OPCD has recommended for docketing the stadium district.

And I know that I appreciate the mayor's perspective in terms of wanting to hold off until we can do the industrial lands work.

I guess it seems to me in the more general context that it would make sense for OPC, for us to docket this proposal to create the stadium district now while simultaneously doing the industrial lands work.

I mean, I'm just, I know SPCD, the planning commission has recommended to docket it as well.

And so I'm just kind of curious, I guess, where am I making the disconnect here?

Where's the disconnect?

Well, I think it's both one of where that work resides and also in terms of timing.

And I think I alluded to this in covering more generally any of the proposals related to industrial lands.

So this does, we do, and as was described to you earlier, there is this process which is more holistic, more really on a different track than the annual amendments that is kicking off.

The timeline for that work is quite likely to extend beyond what we could feasibly then complete and then forward recommendations for any legislation and do the environmental review that would be necessary to fit in with the docket this year.

So really it's a question of timing with respect to that other process that is really primary bottom line here.

Now that doesn't mean that an annual amendment process in a future year, such as the docketing process that begins next year, mightn't be timed well to any recommendations coming on the industrial lands work would feed into, but it really just is not timely and right, we feel at this time to put on the docket for this year.

Council Member Holm.

Well, thank you all for being here today.

Appreciate it.

I will now open the public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment docketing setting.

Speakers are limited to two minutes of public comment.

If the speaker's comment exceeds the two minutes, the microphone will be turned off.

And we will start with Jeremy Pong.

Thank you.

I'm actually just here to answer any questions about the Robbins.

So skip me for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Persak.

And next on our list is Sarah Cameron.

John's first and Sarah, sorry.

Just giving you, teeing it up.

Good morning.

My name is John Persak, and I'm speaking on behalf of ILWU Local 19. Just wanted to comment on Amendment No. 7 of the Comp Plan.

We are in opposition to that being docketing.

I was able to participate in the last round of discussions around industrial lands.

It was a very data-driven discussion, and I think part of the reason why a lot of the work wasn't complete was because there was just a lot of data that really needed to be retrieved and understood before we can have a real conversation about what needed to happen.

And unfortunately, we just ran out of time.

One thing that did come out of that process, and this is memorialized on the OED's website, is that housing in the industrial lands areas is a non-starter.

The stadium district proposes to put housing in the industrial lands.

And so I think that's the major contradiction that needs to be looked at.

So I appreciate your time and look forward to further conversations and willing to provide input wherever it's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Cameron.

Hi, I'm Sarah Cameron.

I'm Chief of Strategy for Providence Home and Community Care, which includes Providence Mount and St. Vince, also known as The Mount.

The mission of Providence calls us to serve as expressions of God's healing love to all we serve, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.

As Charlene mentioned previously, The Mount is a really special place for residents, patients, Providence caregivers, community partners, children, the Sisters of Providence, and really the whole community.

Everyone is welcome at the Mount.

In the spring of 2019, we started exploring options for upgrading the nearly 100-year-old campus to expand existing services and assess how to honor the legacy of our founders for another 100 years.

It was during this time that we became aware of the comprehensive plan update and the accompanying land use changes and are here today to request the Mount be included within the West Seattle Junction hub urban village.

Based on our interpretation of Section 7 of Resolution 31807, we believe we meet the criteria to have this comprehensive plan amendment considered.

Our motivation is to create flexibility in our development planning to honor the 163-year legacy of the Sisters of Providence and ensure we meet or exceed the mandatory affordable housing requirements associated with our property.

I'm also a West Seattle resident and parent to two young boys who attend the Mounts Intergenerational Learning Center.

I'm sensitive to the challenges associated with parking, traffic, and density management in West Seattle and can assure you that parking and traffic will be assessed and included as part of our master site planning.

As a parent, one of the many things that I also love about the Mount is how integrated the kids are in the campus and in the broader community.

Just last week, my preschooler walked to Husky Deli.

They're going to Dim Sun by bus later this week or next week.

And they take the bus to Alki and across the city really on a regular basis.

So again, I appreciate your time and hope you'll consider the Mount as part of the West Seattle Hub Junction Urban Village.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Berete Erickson.

Good morning.

My name is Barrett Erickson.

I'm the Workforce Development Director for the Sailors Union of the Pacific, and I'm also a member of the Seattle-King County Workforce Development Council.

And I wanted to speak on behalf of the Mayor's position on industrial lands use.

and also against docketing Amendment 7. But in particular, I wanted to speak about the workforce development plans and strategies that are being developed around the Seattle-King County Maritime Sector and the importance that the industrial lands play to being able to create the workforce development and education system that's necessary to provide the training for the young people that can work in this area.

So that's pretty much essentially what I have to say.

It's being worked on in public and private gatherings all throughout the city and the county.

It is a very, there's also some federal things going on that I've been working with on our advisory committee at the federal level having to do with developing more port infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera.

That will create more workforce opportunities.

And for that, you need industrial lands.

We can't lose it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Charlie Royer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Charlie Royer.

I'm a board member and past chair of the Public Facilities District, which is the owner of T-Mobile now, T-Mobile Park.

I'm here to support the recommendations of Council Central staff and the City's Planning Commission to docket now the comprehensive plan amendment for review during this cycle.

As Councilmember Herbold suggested, there have been several stakeholder committees to study the industrial lands issues, and they've all made, they both have made recommendations which are now part of our proposal.

But two former mayors twice deferred action on those proposals, deferred action in the face of rapid change.

Another sports facility recommended or discussed for the stadium district, major shifts in governance and operations of the ports of Tacoma and Seattle, and lots of talk about the need to address transportation and freight mobility, which is now underway.

Now that things might be settling a bit, I'd like to just pose two suggestions for your consideration.

One, docket our proposal.

and help us find a better path for achieving the mayor's priorities and the needs of the port.

The mayor has recommended against docketing our proposal so a third stakeholder committee could do an 18 to 24-month citywide study, industrial and maritimes land study.

The study will likely find what other studies have found, that there is no industrial land uses in the stadium district.

effort, our docketing will not affect the mayor's plan to do a citywide study.

Secondly, the mayor's long timeline is going to produce an opportunity to shape, is going to preclude the opportunity to shape a large piece of land which is very soon going to be surplused by the state, the Waska property.

This property could be snatched up by developers for other uses.

So I'm just saying today that Read our docket proposal.

It talks about housing.

Help us find a better path for achieving the mayor's priorities and the needs of the port.

Workforce housing, industrial, and maritime jobs.

A mixed-use neighborhood, safe and clean, that will take charge of change in the future and not be frozen by it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor Rohrer.

Next is Fred Mendoza.

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to present.

My name is Fred Mendoza.

I'm chair of the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, the owners of CenturyLink Field.

I'm here to support and endorse a recommendation to docket the stadium district for the current comp plan cycle.

Further delays are really unnecessary as Councilmember Herbold pointed out.

This stadium authority has, we started this eight years ago and we have talked and talked and talked about it.

It got all the way up to the Council a couple years ago and I submit to you that nothing new will be learned by the city's proposed four-year delay in making an ultimate decision.

You can't take Enterbay and you can't take Georgetown and plunk them into a common study group with the stadium district.

I have to make a confession that eight years ago, when we started this process, internally, we just started calling it the stadium and the stadium district.

That is an unfortunate moniker now, as we look back, because to many, it conjures up ideas of Las Vegas in bright lights.

This is not really a stadium district.

This is a district that is composed of many constituent neighborhoods, and it begs to be stitched together in a comprehensive manner by the council through its land use tools.

Many changes are happening even as we speak and since the economic study was completed a couple years ago, more changes are being made.

The port is planning to do something, our neighbour to the west.

The viaduct is down.

I looked from the stadium the other day and saw that you can actually see the water now.

So all of these changes beg immediate attention by the council in an intelligent way to design the future of this area.

We agree with everything that the staff has said today about the need for workforce housing and housing and more vibrant infrastructure, but it needs an intelligent design for that infrastructure, and it has not been made by the overlay, which has run its course.

It did what it was supposed to do, so thank you very much.

We look forward to the opportunity to continue this discussion.

Again, please docket this.

Next on our list is, oh sorry, Council Member Herbal.

Just for the record, my inquiries about the past work that has been done as directed by past councils and implemented by past mayors was not to suggest that there was nothing more that could be learned by further engagement.

It was more just to get a sense of where we were going to be starting this new process, whether or not it was going to be from the last set of recommendations, or whether or not we were going to be starting from square one.

I'm also really interested to know, of those old recommendations, whether or not there's anything that there's strong enough consensus around that we could use this docketing process to talk about.

Thank you.

Next on our list is Tia Protovich.

Petrovich.

Thank you, council members.

I'm here today in support of Amendment 7, the Stadium District.

I am the board president of the Pioneer Square Residence Council, some residents who could be here today and many who are obviously working.

I bring the residential voice, and we have a letter to read into record in support.

On behalf of the board of the Pioneer Square Residence Council, we support the plan to create a stadium district as an independent land use classification.

Pioneer Square includes 3,000 people who call the square their home.

We are a very diverse group of property owners and renters who keep Seattle historic, vibrant, safe, and thriving.

The stadium district would allow more housing and greater community in south downtown.

The proposal would create the opportunity for future developments in areas adjacent to Pioneer Square.

This would create a strong sense of place and a vibrant mix of housing, open space, retail, new concept industry, and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes for residents, sports fans, and tourists.

We are particularly interested in the future development of housing and green space on the Waska property.

This property is previously recommended by the Stadium District Stakeholders Committee, which I sat on, convened by the city several years ago.

We understand that WSDOT may sell the Waska site as early as 2021. If the area could be rezoned from industrial to independent, then housing, including workforce housing and green space, meaning a park, this could be realized.

Introducing a mixed-use plan will improve the safety and well-being of all who live, work and play and transit through the area.

An increased residential base helped revitalize Pioneer Square just a few years ago, and other stadium mixed-use neighborhoods have enjoyed similar success.

So the ask, send the stadium district plan to the full council for consideration.

We want the conversation.

This plan-based strategy deserves serious consideration because it can strengthen the physical, social, structural, and economic conditions of South Seattle where we live, work, and play.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Eric Fitch.

And next is Megan Cruz.

Thank you, Chair Pacheco, Councilmember Herbold.

My name is Eric Fitch, here today on behalf of the Port of Seattle and the Northwest Seaport Alliance.

As a special purpose government charged with operating the state's international trade gateways, Fisherman's Terminal, Terminal 91, and the critical supply chains associated with these facilities, I'm here to express the concern of the Port and Seaport Alliance with the proposed Stadium District Comp Plan amendment.

We respectfully urge you to delay consideration of this proposal until, as the Mayor has suggested, the City can convene a comprehensive citywide process to update our industrial lands planning framework.

At the Port, we have long advocated for the need to undertake such a holistic review, and we appreciate the Mayor's recent letter to Council on this topic.

We just heard from her staff on their plan to convene a deliberative process that will review a range of issues important to the manufacturing, maritime, and industrial sectors with whom we partner.

We agree and we support this approach.

We were glad to participate in the industrial lands panel that was convened by the previous administration.

Unfortunately, the good work that was done by that group was left unfinished and we look forward to a fresh start.

At the Port and the Seaport Alliance, we feel strongly that the completion of the study must precede consideration of this amendment proposal or any such proposal that reduces the region's industrial lands base.

Affordability issues in this city are a matter of daily discussion, as you know.

Part of that discussion must include a focus on living wage jobs, like those jobs that are supported by our city's industrial land base.

We believe that preservation of maritime manufacturing and industrial lands is critical to supporting living wage jobs and the vital and diverse economic sectors on which the city was built.

Jobs on the working waterfront and in our region's manufacturing businesses pay a wage that can support a family and often don't require a college diploma.

We've worked with the city on workforce training initiatives to ensure that our constituents can gain the skills to work in these sectors with a specific focus on engaging communities of color and low-income communities.

We encourage the council to take this opportunity to work with the mayor's office and consider ways that we can all collaborate across levels of government to support the working waterfront.

We look forward to the opportunity to revisit the industrial lands conversation with the city, and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next is Megan Cruz, and after Megan is Steve Repstello.

Okay, thank you.

I'm here this morning to talk about my amendment number five to add TNCs and delivery trucks to the multimodal planning of the comp plan.

Although it wasn't recommended for docketing, two of the three reviewing bodies, the Seattle Planning Commission and OPCD did recommend that it be considered for the major update to the comprehensive plan.

And scoping for that will begin shortly and I'd like this committee to please recommend that it move forward to scoping both to the mayor and to the full council.

If we don't measure the impacts of these two disruptors, we'll never solve congestion or plan for adequate infrastructure.

The numbers are compelling.

We know that In 98104, the district that this building is in, we have 10,000 TNC trips a day average.

Up the street in 101, it's 17,000.

For every mile a solo driver in a car puts on the road, a TNC puts 2.8 miles on the road.

TNCs are growing 30% annually.

It's a problem that if we don't get our hand on, we will never solve.

Numbers for the delivery trucks are also compelling.

The city's own research says delivery trucks will double by 2023, and yet we're building new towers that'll hold 1,000 residents without single loading berths, and with 50 to 60% or 80% of the units having parking spaces.

So, the bottom line is, the only way to address density and transportation problems is to include all the factors.

We need to add TNCs and delivery trucks to the multimodal master plan.

That way we can create data-driven transportation and infrastructure policy.

Thanks for your consideration.

Numbers 2 and 7 I'm more familiar with than 12, but I think the same problem goes through this is we don't have enough citizen involvement.

Everything is pulled away for the mighty, mighty stakeholders.

Part of government's job is to take a look at some of these whiz-bang proposals and say, how does it fit into the city?

Does it really work?

Some of you might remember that just recently there were some changes for the North Precinct and how well the neighbors around there felt they were treated by the city.

I would suggest around Northgate, you may get even a bigger bang.

And so I would suggest before you start seriously changing zoning around Northgate, expanding zones, more super zones where you'll have even less control over the long run, that you start taking a look at the citizens who live around there.

Notice I said citizens, not mighty, mighty stakeholders or people who have some other interest.

Seattle's citizens do feel like we've been ignored.

And you want to take a look at Stadium District Industrial land is probably the most vulnerable land we have in the city.

Because when you make it multi-use, what generally happens is, guess what?

The more intense, the one that yields the most money takes over.

And so before you start removing industrial land, I think you need to do the long-term look because Seattle is not going to replace it.

What kind of a city do you want or is that irrelevant?

Is it all zoning is to be done when somebody comes with a whiz bang plan and a few dollars?

Thank you.

Next is Mako Winkler-Chin.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

The Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority supports docketing the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal, Amendment 7. I don't need to tell you that south downtown is changing quickly.

And in 2013, the city convened and we participated in the Stadium District Advisory Group to discuss potential changes for the area.

The group specifically discussed the four-acre Waska site.

And, you know, in 2013, the idea of getting through Highway 99 rebuild and the viaduct coming down seems so far off in the future, but we're there now.

And now that that's done, the Waska site could easily be transferred in 2021. And that also seems a little bit far off, but it's really, really not.

So we believe and we are requesting that the city not lose this opportunity but yet docket the amendment as part of the comp plan and docketing it through the comprehensive plan amendment cycle does not preclude it from being discussed in the industrial zone or the industrial lands conversation as well.

But don't lose opportunity on the WASCA site.

We ask you to docket the proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next on our list is Dave Jerry.

Yeah, my name is Dave Gehring.

I'm the executive director of the Manufacturing Industrial Council of Seattle.

Very nice to meet you, new council member.

I have been through every industrial land use effort and stakeholder process since the Growth Management Act was adopted.

So that goes back to about 1998. I wish we had different scheduling issues because I'm going to express great support for the mayor's letter.

In all those years, I have never seen a better letter that's better informed by elected leader on this issue.

I really mean that.

This group that just met here, I think it's tragic they left before they had a chance to hear this input, has done a terrific job for you.

And my, what I, and I'm sorry for Charlie and the stadium district, I think the objection there really over docketing is just how does this all fit?

And you're right, all these major changes have taken place, but we're picking and taking little tiny bits out of the industrial area, just the classic thing you're not supposed to do.

So we're going to urge you to follow what the mayor says, but let's find a way to There's tons of information that's already been done.

Talk to Charlie.

We'll talk to Ann.

Maybe there's some things that we could speed up there, because we know what research has already been done.

I agree with all of my friends from labor.

There was tremendous work done in the last cycle.

That work is all still sitting there.

The consultant who did it has his business in the city of Seattle.

It would take almost nothing to get that all together again.

And in a week, you'll have a way different idea of how feasible and what the scheduling issues are, what happens when.

We've researched WASCA.

Someday, do a Freedom of Information Act on that.

that sale of the property to the state because you'll learn more about industrial land use issues than you will in almost any other process and kind of on the ground how it all works.

I'm just going to totally agree with what everybody has said about workforce development.

This is what we have never figured out in this city, 106,000 industrial jobs within the city limits of Seattle.

Attrition in the American industrial economy is about 3 to 6% a year.

That means turnover.

So when you have 100,000 jobs as your base and you're looking at a 3, 5, 6% turnover, that's 3, 5, 6,000 job openings every year.

We're doing almost nothing to connect our communities that we're all worried about with those opportunities.

My office is at the Georgetown campus, the best apprenticeship training center from here to LA, here to Chicago.

It's empty almost all day long.

You could be training people there to get these jobs.

For whatever reason, that hasn't happened yet.

If you work for us, we're going to help you figure out how to do that.

Charlie can work with you guys on what you're talking about.

But it really makes sense to have that more regional issue.

And kudos to the mayor and this new staff group.

I think they just did an excellent job.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here that would like to speak for public comment?

Seeing that there are no additional speakers.

Oh, sorry.

And you can be sure to sign in.

I apologize for not signing in.

I was a little bit late.

I'm Dan McKiss.

I'm with ILW Local 19 Seattle.

I'm the president of the Washington Area District Council.

I represent ILW workers in the ports from Bellingham to Olympia.

I'm completely against amendment number seven.

This issue we see in all the ports up throughout the state, industrial land pressure to develop those lands.

This is a bold vision, this plan, but it's an industrial land grab.

We need to preserve these lands.

We've been working on this for years.

Words matter in this.

I've heard stadium district mentioned multiple times, the majority of the project, is going to be done in what is called the Stadium Transition Overlay District.

Okay, that's a buffer zone.

That was intentionally put there in the early 2000s to separate the stadiums from the industrial area.

It's worked well for 20 years, almost 20 years.

We need to preserve that.

So I'm against Amendment 7. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers, I will now close the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment docketing setting.

Thank you everyone who submitted applications and who joined us here today.

In the coming weeks, I will be introducing the docketing resolution and we'll be working at the next PLEZ committee meeting on August 7th.

If there's no more discussion for now, we will now move on to our next action item.

Our final item of business today is a briefing and discussion with SDCI on their permit backlog work.

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

Agenda item 3, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections permit backlog update.

Oh, sorry, I reserved this seat for Noah.

I apologize.

Sorry, my apologies.

Would you please introduce yourselves and kick us off?

Hi, Nathan Torkelson, Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, SDCI.

Andy Higgins, Engineering Services Director, SDCI.

So thank you, Councilmember Pacheco, for asking us to come today to talk about the things that we're doing at SDCI to address the permit backlog at our department.

We're obviously extremely busy and continue to have high levels of permits, but we are doing several things to address that issue.

Thanks, Andy.

Just a reminder of our purpose and values and to continue.

So we have a budget of $85 million, and just a reminder to our TV audience that 91% of that budget is funded by permit fees.

We issued over 51,000 permits in 2018, but not only are we busy issuing land use and construction permits, but we also have a very active role in code enforcement, We have a very robust rental registration and inspection ordinance program that Councilmember Herbold was very instrumental in helping adopt and get through council.

And we do a lot of work with our landlord and tenant community, and we have a lot of new tenant regulations that we help enforce and educate the public about.

Just looking at construction permit intake volumes, we have been at record levels since 2015. And our peak was at 2016, 2017. We're down just a little bit.

But admittedly, those intake volumes have been difficult for our department to manage.

So we're not just taking in permits.

We are issuing permits.

And there's a huge emphasis in the city right now to keep up with the job growth that we've experienced.

And so that people who want to live in Seattle can live in Seattle and can live close to those jobs.

We have issued over 69,000 permits.

gross number of units in the last seven years housing permits.

And just comparing that to San Francisco, maybe not the best example, but a city with a much higher population than Seattle, and we're issuing over double the number of housing units that they are in that city.

So getting to the main focus of the presentation.

I think everyone knows in April of 2018, we launched our new permitting system, Accela, the Accela platform, and that was in parallel with some major Seattle IT consolidation efforts in the city.

Obviously, that rollout was bumpy, and I apologize and take responsibility for that.

A lot of people said, why couldn't you have just fixed or improved Hanson, which was our previous system?

The fact of the matter was that that previous system was out of date, unsupported, and was actually failing daily.

So it was very important that we migrate to a new system.

Accela allows for a citywide platform, so we can integrate services across several city departments, and other departments are starting to add on to that platform.

At the end of the day, it will provide a seamless process for applicants who are coming into the city and touching multiple departments as they get their permits.

It will allow for better automation, as I mentioned, more efficiencies, and will increase that coordination with other departments.

So the rollout negatively impacted our customers and also had an impact on people who aren't necessarily our permit applicants, but people who are tracking permits and want to understand what's happening in their neighborhoods.

We immediately responded to that.

We created a short-term customer support team to respond to the immediate issues that were coming in.

We gathered customer suggestions for improvements.

We created short videos on selected topics to help applicants through the system.

We added staff to our help center.

And we have met with a variety of folks, stakeholder groups like the Master Builders, the Downtown Seattle Association.

But we have also met with resident groups.

We recently met with some folks who live downtown who have been trying to track all the new development that's happening and help them guide their process through Accela.

Thank you before moving on to the next slide.

I just want to flag a glitch or two glitches that My staff have identified in their efforts to deliver constituent services one is that every record shows as as expired for the permit records, permit expiration, they all show as expired as of 1-31-18.

So again, every permit shows as expired.

And that makes it really difficult to track permitting issues.

And then secondly, But the due dates in the review section are often incorrect when we check with staff and or labeled as TBD.

So again, these glitches make it really hard for customers and neighbors to determine what's due.

and when, and so I'm just highlighting those.

I'm sure you've heard about them as well.

And if they've already been corrected, I apologize for raising them here, but if not, I would love to get a sense of when those corrections might be made.

understood.

It's actually a great transition.

Andy Higgins, who's the head of our engineering services division, is going to talk about our recent $3 million investment to help continuous improvements to Accela, and he can help address those issues.

Thanks, Nathan.

So on that note, actually just to address this real quickly, I think that it's really helpful for us when we find very specific issues and what's causing them so that we know what the root causes are and can identify how to fix those root causes.

So the expiration date thing is a new thing to me.

I don't know that, so maybe we could follow up later on the details about that.

The project due date issue is an already identified issue.

In our old system, we used to have an internal due date mechanism where we could assign internal target dates for review staff.

versus having an external cycle target for all reviews to be completed by cycle, and that was the information that the public could see.

Unfortunately, when we went live, that went away, that distinction went away, and the internal information is what was now presented to the public.

So we're actually in the process of trying to upgrade that, and it's one of the issues that we've identified as continuous improvement.

So, yeah, what Nathan talked about was after we rolled out our new system, you know, that had compounded after years of back-to-back-to-back record volumes, as well as about a five-year project to implement this new system.

During that five-year project, we had a technology freeze, so we weren't able to make any improvements to the Hanson system other than emergency issues or legislative, to address legislative issues.

So we really weren't able to continue along our path of continuous improvement as we had since we did the Perl effort back in the 90s and all of the process improvements we've done since the early 2000s.

So that put kind of a delay in what we were able to do, but we had planned ahead for a project right after Go Live that we called our Prep 3 project that was intended to go through the end of 2018 for a six-month period to continue to roll out improvements to the system, knowing that we weren't going to implement a perfect system and that there were going to be some flaws.

What we've done with this $3 million additional investment is extended that project through to the end of 2019. with the hope of being able to support ongoing and continuous improvements through Seattle IT, having enough resources to be able to support us in that effort.

Along the way, we've had a lot of conversations with constituents at all levels, individuals applying for permits for their backyard cottage or their detached garage versus We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback.

We've had a lot of great feedback Some examples are we're working to bring back the Shaping Seattle mapping application and expanding the functionality of that, allowing applicants to add contacts and then delegate authority within the records so that if you have an architect and sub consultants working on a project, they'll be able to access that project and respond to their various components.

auto assignment of records so that staff can respond more quickly and directly to those responses.

Pre-assigning our reviews and other department reviews during intake to specific individuals.

And what happens here is that now our system, the one benefit of this automated system is that we were actually able to reduce bottlenecks that existed before, where we used to have to touch applications after we screened it and after an applicant would pay to then bring the project in manually.

The system now automates some of those processes, so as soon as an applicant pays, it fires right into the system and all the previous information that was set up kicks right into our process and eliminates those bottlenecks that we have control over.

Some of the other things like Nathan talked about are the interactions with other departments and streamlining both process workflows and system workflows so that applicants can have a single contact record in the system similar to your Amazon account or other accounts that you use online and be able to report or apply to different departments for various permits through one portal rather than having to apply at each department individually.

It'll allow us to have better reporting and performance metrics, which are helping us identify further bottlenecks in the system and then proactively identify the subsequent bottleneck that'll be created by resolving the initial bottleneck.

And then also allow us to more proactively address and respond to legislative-driven enhancements like vacant buildings and demolitions, EV readiness, et cetera.

I just want to put in a quick plug for the Shaping Seattle website, which people loved.

And because instead of going through our permit tracking database, you could go to a map and just click on a dot, and it was very easy for the public to navigate.

So we haven't been able to update that with Accela, but we are working really hard on that.

We just had a presentation on that yesterday.

And the new Shaping Seattle will be even better, because it will not just be design review projects, but it'll be all land use and construction permits.

And also wanted to talk about the Land Use Information Bolton.

We know that's an important resource for the development community.

And for the public, that's our twice weekly notice of all permit applications and land use decisions that have a discretionary component where the public can engage.

When Accela went live a year ago, that system had some real challenges.

We immediately fixed that, and it's better than it was before in that the public can actually do a search query where they can do, like, within these two months, all the land use application notices and decisions.

So it allows a lot more query ability for the public to look at those applications and decisions.

And the Shaping Seattle app will then go even further and be able to allow you to do within a certain area or within a certain zone or a district and that kind of thing as well.

So it'll provide enhanced functionality.

Council Member Herbal?

Just want to say yay.

That's a fantastic resource both for my office as well as for the public.

So thank you.

For sure.

Okay, so some of the current state and what we're seeing as trends in the outlook going forward.

Obviously, we concur that timelines from intake to issuance have remained high.

There's a number of factors associated with that.

The change in the 2015 international codes adopted January 1st, 2017. created this amazing vesting rush in the last quarter of 2016 that really took about 18 months to get through, not only the initial plan review cycle, but all the correction cycles to get a lot of those permits out the door.

So with that, the energy code changed significantly along with that, which is, I think, why people tried to get in the door with complete applications ahead of that adoption date.

But it really, it doubled the backlog at that time.

So really those recent past experiences people have had with our department have been somewhat a result of that and also in combination with the result of increased turnover and retirements and backfilling and other things that go along with that, as well as our release last year of Accela.

But the outlook I think looks good Going forward we've added 13 Limited term limited contingent budget authority positions mostly in the zoning review location, which has been our primary bottleneck in recent memory We've adjusted the fees in 2019 to fill some funding gaps and also to shore up and add to our core staffing reserves so that during the next downturn, we're able to keep staff on board so we can get ahead of the economic recovery and not be the bottleneck there.

And again, wanted to thank the mayor and council for their support on the fee and funding changes in the last budget cycle.

That will be huge when we have the next downturn and uptick.

Absolutely.

In engineering services specifically, we're also underway in hiring processes for building plans examiners, structural plans examiners, and our permit specialist group that do our permit processing.

And we talked about the core staffing.

So this is some of the data that is just reflective of the last year.

You can see this is talking about simple and medium projects in the blue, and then the orange or red, the more complex projects.

You can see the trend had been increasing timelines to complete 95% of all initial plan reviews until April of this year, and you can see the trend now going downward.

I think there's a couple of things going along with that.

A lot of the improvements we've made to Accela over the past year are now starting to kick into effect and we're actually seeing some enhanced functionality and tools.

Part of that has to do with much, much better reporting.

that has been implemented since April and that we're able to give to our supervisors so that the way they attack the workload is more effective in getting through those permit reviews faster.

We find that there's a huge correlation between intake to issuance timelines.

There's two pieces that really have a huge correlation to that.

One is our ability to get to initial plan review quickly.

after intake and complete all initial plan reviews.

So we may have, you know, a number of initial plan reviews needed on any given permit application from ordinance structural, energy, drainage, geotechnical, zoning, and the list goes on.

So a cycle is when all of those reviews are completed and any one of those being a bottleneck can impact, sorry, can impact this number directly.

So knowing that we are addressing our bottleneck location and zoning, as well as giving better assignment tools and reporting tool, performance reporting tools to our supervisors.

That has had a dramatic impact since April when we had a big release and an improvement on our reporting, performance reporting given to our supervisors.

So we're hoping that trend continues and we're confident that it will.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Can we go back?

Yeah.

Thanks.

So the number in parentheses for the key two weeks and two months, that's the goal?

That's the goal, yeah.

So for all, the goal historically has been 80% of simple or medium projects completed within two weeks.

And then the goal for the complex has been 80% completed within two months.

And so the May 18, that was May 2018, that was before launch?

That was right after launch.

And this is for 95% complete, which we think is a more realistic target to be shooting for, because missing 1 in 5 is way less effective than missing 1 in 20. So this data is based on what our future goals are, is to shoot for a 95% complete rate, not an 80% complete rate.

So they're a little bit apples to oranges, the two weeks and two months, but our goal is to make that 95% complete number come dramatically back down.

I think more realistic numbers are probably four weeks and 12 weeks, but that we're still working out what is.

And this is for construction permits, this is not for master use permits.

Correct.

I'm just a little, I mean, one, it would help to see how close we were to meeting our goal prior to launch.

And then secondly, I'm a little confused as to why despite, I mean, from the chart, it looks like we're making progress as compared to when the peak problem was, but as compared to launch, pretty much where we were at the beginning of launch.

And, you know, I just, you know, good work.

You're making progress, but I'm I think it really depends on what your comparison point is to be able to see that progress.

And so I'm just, it would, for me to be able to have some perspective on the complaints that we're hearing, it would be really helpful to look at what we were doing prior to May 18 to just to get a handle on whether or not our goal is really you know, a reach goal and we've not really been, we weren't meeting it before the launch of Acela.

Or, you know, whether or not our performance really has a lot further to go in order to be meeting the standards.

that were sort of practice, even if not goal, not meeting goal practice, and sort of what the expectation was of the public prior to launch.

So that would be really helpful to me.

Then my follow-up question relates to the expectations established just recently after passage of the ADU legislation and the mayor's executive order, I believe there's a request for expedited permitting for ADUs as part of that executive order.

And just curious as to how, you know, what that goal looks like and how we can expect to meet it.

For sure, I think part of the issue here is just trying to meld our old data in the Hanson system with the new data in Excel, pulling the data from two systems and getting it to be a consistent look.

It's hard to do still.

We're working on that though.

And I will say that since about 2015, that was about the last point we were really able to meet the performance targets, and we can show that in the future.

But I think, yeah, since then, with that bump in 2016, we have not been able to meet it.

My hope is that this trend is showing where we want to go, and that we don't necessarily set our future targets based on our past performance.

But like you said, be more realistic to meeting expectations of the public and the people who are trying to obtain the permits from us.

And then on the adu-dadus, yeah, we hear you loud and clear.

It's something that's really important to the mayor.

We're working closely with OPCD on having pre-approved designs that will still have to be approved by our department.

But applicants who choose to go that route will have a much more efficient permitting process.

We know many applicants are going to want to design their own dadus, and we're also working on a more efficient process for them as well.

So in terms of creating success for applicants, some of the things that we've been doing is trying to encourage increased quality of what we're able to take in and then also be able to reduce the number of cycles that an application will go through.

So having to write corrections and having complete responses resubmitted, being able to do better coordination for that.

So some of the things that we've encouraged are application materials when they are complete so that they can get in the door earlier.

On our website now, there's a news article put up on the front page about the intake express lane, which has existed for a long time.

But often what we'll hear is that it takes a significantly long time to get an intake appointment.

But what isn't clear to folks is that if they actually upload all of their intake submittal requirements, that they get on a list for, an automated list for cancellations.

So we're often able to actually take in submitted, fully complete and submitted applications within a two to three week period, not a 14 to 16 week period, which is what the predictable scheduled intake appointment calendar has.

For folks that have that option, it's often that they have plans and things to, produce after they purchase a property and so they like the predictability of having a calendared scheduled appointment time but others just need that expediency and so we have another way for people to get in that often isn't well publicized I guess or clear enough.

We try to publicize it as well as we can but it's now we've written that article it's it's up on the front page of our home site and hopefully that word gets out there a little bit more.

Just to rephrase that a little bit, a lot of applicants are putting in an appointment time months and months in advance, and they're not even close to having a complete application ready.

They want to reserve that time.

And once they do have their complete application, they can move up much quicker.

But they need to know.

Exactly.

We're also encouraging applicants to utilize our free coaching services.

Often we hear from small business owners that they didn't know that certain code requirements were going to get triggered, like having to make accessibility improvements or not knowing that the use and occupancy of the space is maybe not allowed in the zone that they signed a lease for or purchased a property in, or whether or not maybe the change of use might trigger substantial alterations.

So really trying to encourage folks to come talk to us early and often.

We're here to partner with you and to help you understand what the existed permitted legal use and occupancy is of a space before you sign that lease so that you know that you can put that new intended space in there and not have to trigger a lot of changes.

They are also paid pre-seminal conferences, so that if you do get into very project-specific requirements, we have services available for folks to be able to kind of figure out exactly what they need to submit to us at intake to help increase the quality of that application, and then also reducing the time to obtain the permit with, you know, that more complete application material submitted.

This is an indication, this slide is an indication of how long, from a calendar perspective, permits will go through the permit process from intake to issuance based on the number of cycles that it goes through.

The majority of permits applications that we see are in the two to three review cycle range, but we do have a number of projects that go through multiple cycles.

And sometimes that's the complexity of complying with the code.

Other times it's lack of clarity in our corrections.

Other times it's lack of responsiveness from an applicant.

So there's a whole variety of reasons that occurs.

But one thing that we can do to partner together is to help get that clarity and that complete response combined and try to reduce the number of correction cycles so that we're able to actually issue permits in less cycles and in a shorter timeframe.

So some ideas for process reform and code simplification.

We do have an increasingly complex land use building and energy codes.

And the land use code is 867 pages long.

So it does take very careful review by staff to make sure that they're adhering to the codes.

The recently adopted mandatory housing affordability measures and verifications, they are, Obviously very important.

It's a key policy initiative of the city, but that does require very careful and time-consuming calculations by SDCI staff.

So I'm just recognizing that Seattle has a very complex regulatory environment.

As far as ideas to help, land use code simplification is an option.

That's time-consuming and complicated, but that is something that we can look at.

Another issue that I know some electeds have talked about is raising the SEPA thresholds.

Right now, Seattle's SEPA thresholds are well below the state levels.

Those changes would require council review and approval.

And we are preparing to pilot some new review and collaboration tools.

Bluebeam Review is one example.

And that's where an applicant and a staff review member can look at a plan and make real-time corrections online.

I also wanted to add that we have presented to the Mayor's Small Business Advisory Council and also to the Middle Income Affordable Housing Advisory Council about the permitting process.

And we anticipate that they're going to have a lot of recommendations to all of us about how we can improve the permitting process, not only for applicants, but also for the public.

I know just the loss of institutional knowledge by some staff members has hurt SCCI.

Can you talk about what steps you're talking to address that?

Sure.

So we did receive contingent budget authority.

We have in the past, and we got additional contingent budget authority from the mayor and from the central budget office to hire additional staff.

Those aren't permanent staff.

That's usually a two-year time period.

But what we have found is through the natural sort of attrition of staff, staff move on to other jobs, they retire.

Those people who are contingent budget authority staff are very well positioned and are well trained to take those permanent positions.

So that's one way that we're addressing staff.

retiring are moving on.

I'll just say this is a constant challenge in every department in the city with an aging workforce and bringing in new employees.

So we're all ears for other ideas.

And I think to recognize the fact that if you're able to hire in at the lower levels, knowing that when the upper levels start to retire, there will be a kind of waterfall effect all the way through.

So you're proactively backfilling for the eventuality that you're going to have that sort of natural attrition.

And then those lower levels, depending on the cycle, we may slow down hiring if we do see a significant downgrade in the economy or a slowdown in permit intakes.

OK.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

I'm looking forward to your hard work to address this backlog.

So this concludes our July 17th meeting of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.

We will have, as a reminder, we will have our next regular committee meeting here in Council Chambers on August 7th starting at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you again for attending.

We are adjourned.