GOOD MORNING.
THE ORDER AUGUST 7, 2019
PLANNING, LAND USE, AND ZONING
COMMITTEE WILL MEETING WILL
BEGIN AT 9:36 AM.
WE HAVE A THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY.
THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED
MEETING IS WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER
4 AT 9:30 AM.
BEFORE WE BEGIN IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION TODAY'S AGENDA WILL
BE ADOPTED.
HEARING ON TODAY'S AT AGENDA IS
ADOPTED.
WE WILL BE TAKING A PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO
MINUTES.
IF IT EXCEEDS THE TWO MINUTES
THE MICROPHONE WILL BE TURNED
OFF.
SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO BEGIN
COMMENTS BY IDENTIFYING
THEMSELVES IN THE AGENDA ITEM
THEY WISH TO ADDRESS.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO
THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA OR THE
PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE.
FIRST ON THE LIST IS A CORY.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS CORY AND I HAVE A
HOME, SMALL BUSINESS AND I'VE
LIVED IN THE DISTRICT FOR 20
YEARS.
I WAS CONCERNED WHEN I HEARD
ABOUT THE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE
CHANGES.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE
CHANGES WILL IMPACT THE
COMMUNITY.
ALL OF YOU THAT VISITED THE
DISTRICT.
THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF
DEVELOPMENT IS 1.5 STORIES.
THE CURRENT ZONING CAN GO UP TO
65 FEET.
WHAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO DO IS
TO TAKE THE FLOOR ABOVE MY HEAD
BY 320 FEET.
THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF
CHANGE IN OUR SMALL DISTRICT IN
A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.
WE HAVE WELCOMED MORE DENSITY
THAN ANY OTHER URBAN CENTER.
WE ARE DOING OUR FAIR SHARE.
WE WANT TO MAKE DENSITY WORK
THAT WE ARE LOSING SMALL
BUSINESSES.
65% ARE OWNED BY WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR.
WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPPER
ZONE.
THE COUNCIL PROMISED OUR
COMMUNITIES SEVEN COMPANION
RESOLUTIONS.
INCLUDING HISTORIC DISTRICT, A
LEGACY PROGRAM FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.
THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE
PROGRESS ON BOTH OF THOSE.
CHAIRMAN PACHECO WHEN YOU WERE
SEATED AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT
YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT
OF ZONING THE STREET KNOWN AS
THE AVENUE.
WE ARE PLEADING WITH YOU TO
CONSIDER THE IMPACTS OF THESE
CHANGES TO OUR SMALL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>> Q. NEXT UP IS RICK.
WHEN I HEARD THE RUMOR THAT YOU
ARE GOING TO STRIP OUT SOME OF
THE ORDINANCES OF CEPA.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE AND I
LEFT.
WHY WOULD YOU TRY TO REDUCE THE
RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
SEATTLE TO GUIDE HOW THE CITY
GROWS.
THE ONLY ANSWER IS THAT YOUR
ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO TAKE
THOSE RIGHTS AWAY AND MAKE IT
SO THAT THEY CAN GROW HOWEVER
THEY SEE FIT.
WITHOUT THE CONSULT OF SMALL
BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS.
I HOPE THAT THE REST OF THE
COUNCIL SEES THIS AS A JOKE.
I SEE IT CLEARLY AS A JOKE.
WHY WOULD YOU TRY TO TAKE AWAY
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL AND THE
LIMIT THE ABILITY OF
ESSENTIALLY DEVELOPMENT IN THE
CITY?
AT THE END OF THE DAY
DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN,
AND CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO TAKE AWAY
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO
DO TODAY.
I URGE YOU TO PULL THIS
ORDINANCE OFF.
TO REMOVE THE BILL, AND TO
ASSESS WHERE YOUR HEART LIES.
IF IT'S WITH THE VOTERS AND
RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS.
OR IF IT IS JUST WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT FIRMS? PLEASE TAKE
A GOOD LOOK IN THE MAYOR.
THANK YOU.
NEXT ON THE LIST IS LAURA.
>> GOOD MORNING AND HAPPY DAY
AFTER ELECTION.
I CAME HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT
THE ABUSES I HAVE SEEN WITH A
CEPA.
AND TO SAY HOW WONDERFUL THE
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL PLANS IS.
THE CEPA ABUSE THAT I HAVE SEEN
IS ENDLESS DELAYS USING THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ACT TO PREVENT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND BEING BELT.
PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION OF
A SAFE STREETS BEING BELT.
AND HOW FOLKS ARE ABLE TO
UTILIZE.
WERE NOT GOING TO GET A READ OF
CEPA.
BUT WE WANT TO SEE CHANGES SO
THAT IT WORKS THE WAY IT IS
SUPPOSED TO WORK.
AND SO THAT IT'S NOT ABUSED AND
CO-OPTED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS
ARE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.
AND CEPA IS BEING USED TO
DELAY.
IT HAS RESULTED IN MANY DOLLARS
LOSS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE SAFE
INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET AROUND
SAFELY.
I'M VERY EXCITED THAT YOU'RE
WORKING ON A CEPA REFORM.
AND I'M EXCITED TO HEAR ABOUT
THE UPDATES FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP IS THAT MEGAN
>> GOOD MORNING . I AM HERE TO
TALK ABOUT 119600.
YESTERDAY THE COUNCIL HAD A
RALLY ABOUT THE GREEN AT NEW
DEAL.
THEY URGED US TO JOIN A BOARD
AND FIGHT CARBON EMISSION IN
CLIMATE CHANGE.
THE VERY SAME SESSION THE
COUNCIL HAD A REPORT THAT
SUPPORTED DEVELOPERS PAIN A ONE
TIME TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS MEANT
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN TODAY'S
ORDINANCE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SAID THAT CEPA REVIEW IS
UNNECESSARY.
DOESN'T ANYONE SEE A DISCONNECT
HERE.
OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS DESIGN
REVIEW HAS NARROWED THE SCOPE
DOWNTOWN WHERE I LIVE IT'S ALL
ABOUT THE TOWER AESTHETICS AND
HOW IT IT'S INTO THE SKYLINE.
WHEN CITIZENS TALK ABOUT THE
ISSUES FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
WASTED DESIGN.
THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS THE SAME
WE ARE NOT EXPERTS IT WILL ALL
BE ADDRESSED AT A CEPA THIS
LEGISLATION SEEKS TO SHIFT THE
CEPA TO A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
THAT DOESN'T WANT IT AND IS
UNQUALIFIED.
CEPA IS A STATEWIDE STANDARD.
IT IS A BACKSTOP LEGISLATION TO
ENSURE BEST PRACTICES FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT AND CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION.
DEVELOPERS ARE CALLING FOR IT
TO BE DISMANTLED BECAUSE OF UN-
SUSTAINED DESIGNS.
IF THERE BEING CHALLENGED
INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THE
REPEATED NATURE THIS IS BILL
STEAM ROLLS OVER PUBLIC
PROTECTION.
PLEASE GO BACK TO THE DRAWING
BOARD.
PROJECTS WOULD NOT BE
CHALLENGED IF THEY STARTED WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT AND
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN.
THANK YOU.
>> CHARLIE IS UP NEXT.
SORRY MAYOR?
>> HELLO MY NAME IS CHARLIE AND
I'M THE COCHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT DEVELOPED THE
STADIUM DISTRICT PLAN.
AND IS NOW SEEKING INCLUSION IN
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU IS
ALMOST WORD FOR WORD THE SAME
RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED IN
2016 AND 2017.
THE RESOLUTIONS REQUESTED THE
EXECUTIVE TO EVALUATE THE
STADIUM DISTRICT PLAN.
NEW STUDIES AND RECOGNITIONS
úWERE MADE BUT NO ACTION WAS
TAKEN.
THE JOINT COMMITTEE HAS MET
EVERY CRITERIA MANDATED. IF IT
MOVES FORWARD BY THE COUNCIL
THE PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE
NOTHING AND STADIUM DISTRICT
ZONING UNTIL AFTER THE MAYOR'S
LAND-USE STUDY AND THE CITIES
PROCESS ON EACH NEW ZONING
REQUEST WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND WE
LISTENED TO THEM.
AND WE ARE READY TO ADDRESS
THEM.
SUCH AS POTENTIAL BOUNDARY
CHANGES.
THE STUDY OF THOSE LANDS HAVE
BEEN CONDUCTED IN A TIMELY
MANNER PROVIDING CLARITY IN A
LANDSCAPE WITH INTENSE PRIVATE
DEVELOPER INTEREST.
WHERE ZONING DEVELOPMENT BUT
NOT MIXED-USE WHICH IS IT
NEEDED.
PLEASE APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION
BEFORE YOU WHICH MEETS THE NEEDS
FOR SCHEDULE AND PLAN REVIEW.
WORK WITH US TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
AND HELP US CARRY OUT OUR
STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT THE INVESTMENT OF OUR
STADIUMS WHILE PROVIDING
HOUSING, COMPATIBLE LIGHTING,
AND TRAINING FACILITIES FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE SEEKING GOOD
NONTECHNOLOGICAL JOBS.
IT IS WELL-SUITED FOR THE
VIBRANT MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT WE ENVISION.
>>> NEXT IS ERIC AND THEN CHAD.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ERIC AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE.
WE HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU BEFORE
ABOUT SUPPORT FOR THE WORKING
WATERFRONT AND WE ARE HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU ON THOSE ISSUES.
WE ASK YOU TO NOT DOCKET THE
STADIUM PACKET BEFORE YOU
TODAY.
WE ARE OPPOSED TO REMOVING THAT
LAND FROM THE CITY'S TWO
INDUSTRIAL CENTERS WITHOUT A
APPREHENSIVE REVIEW.
THE RESOLUTION INCLUDES THE
STADIUM DISTRICT BUT OTHER
PROPERTIES WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A
FIRM COMMITMENT FROM THE MAYOR
THAT SHE WILL RECONVENE ORIGINAL
WIDE REVIEW.
JUST A WORD ON THE MIX.
THEY ARE ENGINES THAT POWER
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DIVERSITY.
IT HOSTS MORE THAN 10,000 JOBS
OF A 2015.
AS OF 2017 THERE WERE MORE THAN
35,000 JOBS CONTAINED.
THESE ARE JOBS AND AN ARRAY OF
INDUSTRIES.
THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR
RESIDENTS WITHOUT A COLLEGE
DEGREE.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPENNESS
TO DISCUSS THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU
MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
CHAD?
>> MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL MY
NAME IS CHAD. I'M WITH THE
SEATTLE MARINE BUSINESS
COALITION.
WE REPRESENT SMALL AND LARGE
MARINE BUSINESSES THAT WORK TO
PROVIDE MINIMUM WAGE, MIDDLE-
CLASS JOBS FOR THE CITY AND FOR
THE REGION.
WE OPPOSE THE ACTION TO DOCKET
THE STATE INDUSTRY PLAN THAT
ADDRESSES INDUSTRIAL LANDS AS
WAS PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR IN A
LETTER TO THE COUNCIL.
THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS IN OUR
CITY ARE IMPORTANT FOR
MAINTAINING JOBS IN OUR CITY TO
SUSTAIN WORKING-CLASS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE FROM
ALL EDUCATION LEVELS.
WHETHER IT'S HIGH SCHOOL,
COLLEGE, OR ELSEWHERE.
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE JOBS. AND
WE MUST MAINTAIN THEM.
PARTICULARLY WE NEED THOSE
INDUSTRIAL LANDS TO OPERATE.
WE HAVE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS
THAT PROVIDE FOR A DEEP WATER
HARBOR THOSE THINGS ARE NOT
FOUND ELSEWHERE.
WE CANNOT UTILIZE THAT WITHOUT
THE LAND TO ACCESS THAT AND USE
THOSE PORTS AND THOSE OF
FACILITIES.
WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THOSE.
ANY ACTION THAT IS TAKEN TO
ADDRESS INDUSTRIAL LANDS MUST
BE PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CONSIDERED FIRST.
THANK YOU.
>>> NEXT IS CARLOS
GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS CHARLES AND I WITHIN
THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS
OPERATORS.
I ALSO SERVE ON THE BOARD FOR
THE WASHINGTON MARITIME
FEDERATION.
I IS SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO
THE DOCKETING OF THE AMENDMENTS.
I SPEAK TODAY AS A SPORTS FAN
BUT ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
LITERAL SEATTLE MARINERS.
THE CITY OWNS THEIR IDENTITY TO
THE MARITIME TRADE.
AND THE INDUSTRY THAT SUPPORTS
THE LIVELIHOOD OF THOUSANDS OF
OUR RESIDENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE
COMMITTEE THAT THESE CHOICES
WILL AFFECT THE LIKELIHOOD FOR
FUTURE GENERATIONS.
THE COMBINED IMPACT WAS $30
MILLION WITH A DIRECT REVENUE
OF 17 BILLION.
70,000 WASHINGTON RESIDENTS ARE
EMPLOYED IN THE MARITIME
SECTOR.
WITH AN ANNUAL SACK SALARY OF
$65,000.
THE MARITIME INDUSTRY SUPPORTS
HUNDRED 90,000 JOBS THROUGHOUT
WASHINGTON.
IT DRAWS ON A VAST NETWORK OF
BUSINESSES.
WE PAY A LIVING WAGE THIS CAN
SUPPORT A FAMILY AND DOES NOT
REQUIRE A COLLEGE DEGREE.
WE OPPOSE THE REMOVAL OF
REMOVING INDUSTRIAL LANDS
AROUND THE PORT OF SEATTLE.
PLEASE LET US STOP TAKING LAND
FROM MANUFACTURING AND
INDUSTRIAL AND GIVE THEM OVER
TO SPORTING AND INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEXES.
LET'S SINK DOWN ROOTS AND KEEP
OUR COMMUNITIES WORKING.
IT HURTS WORKING PEOPLE WHEN
YOU THREATEN LAND-USE.
AND REPLACE IT WITH LAND-USE
CHOICES THAT SUPPORT JOBS THAT
DON'T PAY AS WELL.
IT MAKES OUR CITY LESS
AFFORDABLE, AND MORE OF A
PLAYGROUND FOR THE WEALTHY.
WE ARE MARITIME CITY.
AND IT MADE US WHAT WE ARE WE
URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO REMOVE
THE ACQUIRING OF MANUFACTURING
LANDS.
WE ASK FOR CITYWIDE UPDATE OF
THE LAND-USE.
>> HELLO MY NAME IS LOU AND I'M
WITH THE MELBOURNE TOWER.
HAVE BEEN THE MANAGER THERE FOR
32 YEARS.
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I
CONTINUE TO SHARE IS REGARDING
ZONING OR UP ZONING WE ARE AT
THIRD AND PIKE.
SO UP ZONING BETWEEN SECOND AND
THIRD ONE OF THE CHALLENGES
WOULD BE ALLOWING DIRECTORS A
RULE TO CHANGE.
ALLIE IS THE PRIMARY USE FOR
ALL TRANSPORTATION, ALL
DELIVERIES OF ANY KIND.
PIKE AND PINE HAVE BEEN
RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF A BIKE
LANE AND A BUS THAT SITS AS A
TEMPORARY PLACE TO PARK.
SO SECOND AVENUE A NEW
DEVELOPMENT WANTS TO BE PUT
THERE.
IT'S GOING TO PLACE A BURDEN ON
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS
DESIGN CHANGE IS GOING TO WORK.
I'M REALLY AGAINST THIS.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR CEPA TO VET THOSE CONCERNS
AS IT RELATES TO NEIGHBORHOOD
BY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOME OF THESE CHANGES ARE BROAD
SWEEPING AND THEY DON'T DEAL
WITH SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED.
WE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD VOTE
THAT DOWN.
THANK YOU.
>> BRYCE?
>> CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE I HERE ON BEHALF OF
FUTURE -WISE.
WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT UPDATING
CEPA REGULATIONS.
DURING THE 2019 SESSION WE
WORKED HARD ON THE BILL.
WE DO NOT TAKE CEPA HARBOR
GENTLY.
WE UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS AND
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PROVIDED
FOR COMMITTEES.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE IN A
HOUSING IN CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
WE HAVE TO WEIGH THOSE TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
I DO WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT THIS
BILL DOES NOT DO.
IT DOESN'T EXEMPT CEPA.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE WHEN THEY
UPDATE THEIR DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS WILL STILL HAVE TO
GO THROUGH A CEPA PROCESS.
THEY'RE GOING TO STILL HAVE TO
DO A CHECKLIST AND A NUMBER OF
OUTREACH.
JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR THE BILL
DOES NOT EXEMPT THAT.
THE OTHER THING IT DOES NOT
EXEMPT PROJECT LEVEL
REQUIREMENTS.
THESE ARE FOR THE 12 ACTIONS
ALLOWED UNDER HOUSE BILL 1923.
I THINK MOVING FORWARD WE
UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED THIS
AND THAT WE WANNA COMPREHENSIVE
CONVERSATION TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE TAKING IN COMMUNITY
INPUT AND UNDERSTANDING.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU IN MOVING THIS FORWARD.
>> COLLEGE THAT THERE IS NO
OBJECTION I'D LIKE TO EXTEND
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANOTHER 15
MINUTES.
HEARING NO OBJECTION WE WILL
EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES.
NEXT ON THE LIST IS ALICE.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
FOR OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN AND THEIR HOPE OF
THE LIVABLE FUTURE I LOVE THAT
SEPA REFORM IS ON THE SAME
AGENDA TODAY ALONG WITH
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL REPORT.
IN SEATTLE THE PRIMARY USE OF
SEPA HAS BEEN TO OBSTRUCT
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW
CLIMATE FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT
AND CURB CLIMATE DEVELOPMENT
SPRAWL THAT HURTS THE
ENVIRONMENT.
AND IT IS SHAMEFUL.
AND I AM SICK OF IT.
THE CLIMATE CLOCK DOESN'T ALLOW
FOR FURTHER DELAYS AND
OBSTRUCTION.
THE STATE HAS HELPFULLY UPDATED
THEIR STATUTE IN WAYS THAT
ALLOWS THE SEPA REFORM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS
ISSUE. I ALSO LOVE THE CAREFUL
ANALYSIS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS
FOR ALL REPORT THAT CHRONICLES
HOW COVENANTS HAVE BEEN USED TO
RESTRICT ACCESS TO MANY OF OUR
MOST PLEASANT NEIGHBORHOODS
WHERE OPPORTUNITY IS LIMITED TO
THOSE THAT ARE WEALTHY ENOUGH TO
AFFORD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
WE KNOW THAT MULTI FAMILY
HOUSING REDUCES PER CAPITA
CARBON FOOTPRINTS, AND ONLY WHEN
SEATTLE SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS BECOME MORE DENSE
WILL WE BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM
WITH ENOUGH TRANSIT FOR CLIMATE
FRIENDLY COMMUTES.
FOR OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR
NEIGHBORS AND CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR SEPA
REFORM.
AND A WELCOME NEW NEIGHBORS TO
ALL OF SEATTLE'S FORMALLY
EXCLUSIVE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNSEL.
MY NAME IS JESS AND I'M HERE TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE COMP PLAN
UPDATE.
AND THE DOCKET REGARDING
CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOSSIL FUEL
STORAGE.
I WAS HERE WITH RESIDENTS AND
LEADERS TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE
POLLUTION AND THE IMPACTS ON
OUR HEALTH.
WE KNOW THAT IT THREATENS OUR
COMMUNITY, IT SHORTENS LIFE
SPANS, AND LEADS TO INCREASED
HOSPITALIZATION IN THE CLIMATE
CRISIS.
WHICH IS THE GREATEST PUBLIC
HEALTH CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST HAVE ARE
RECOGNIZES AND THEIR USE
INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES TO
PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF LOCAL RESIDENTS BY CHANGING
ZONING CODE.
PORTLAND DID THIS IN THE 2016.
AND WE HAVE SEEN COMMUNITIES
AND MULTIPLE CITIES FOLLOW. THE
PORT OF VANCOUVER JUST USED
THEIR AUTHORITY TO PROTECT
LOCAL RESIDENTS FROM FOSSIL
FUEL THREATS.
MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE MAKING
SMART INVESTMENTS IN THEIR
ECONOMIC FUTURE THAT ARE IN
LINE WITH THE HELP AND SAFETY
NEEDS OF LOCAL COMMITTEES.
I AM HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
MOVE THE STUDY FORWARD.
AND FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE TO
CONSIDER WHAT IT CAN DO TO
PROTECT LOCAL RESIDENTS FROM
FOSSIL FUEL THREATS.
EARLY THIS YEAR KING COUNTY
MADE A SIMILAR MOOD.
PASSING A MORATORIUM ON FOSSIL
FUEL STRUCTURE.
AND KICKED OFF A REWRITE TO
CONSIDER WHAT THE COUNTY CAN DO
AND IT'S A LAND-USE AUTHORITY
TO PROTECT RESIDENTS.
THE CITY AND COUNTY CAN WORK
TOGETHER ON THIS PICK IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE CAN BUILD ON
WHAT KING COUNTY HAS ALREADY
PUT TO TOGETHER.
úTO MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVE
FORWARD WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING
WE CAN TO TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE
HERE.
PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND
MEET CLIMATE GOALS.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS BARRETT.
>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS A
PARADIGM THE WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND I'M
ALSO A RESIDENT OF QUEEN ANNE.
I HERE BECAUSE WE OPPOSE
REMOVAL OF LANDS FROM THE
MARITIME INDUSTRIAL CENTER.
I PARTICULARLY HEAR BECAUSE I
AM A MEMBER OF THE SEATTLE KING
COUNTY WORKFORCE COUNCIL.
AND I A MEMBER OF THE MARINE
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
WE ADVISE ON MARITIME ISSUES.
MY SPECIALTY IS WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN THE
MARITIME SECTOR.
FROM FEDERAL TO LOCAL MARITIME
POLICY IS BEING DEVELOPED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE USE OF
PROPER ORAL. D.O.T.
HAS A MAJOR GRANT AND I'M SURE
THE PORT OF SEATTLE HAS APPLIED
FOR THAT.
THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL IS DEVELOPING POLICIES
FOR JOB TRAINING FOR THE
MARITIME SECTOR.
ALL OF THESE POLICIES NEED
INDUSTRIAL LAND TO BE
MAINTAINED.
WE HAVE THE JOBS THAT ARE
BILLABLE TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE.
THAT IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT I HAVE
TO SAY.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS BRITNEY.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS
. MY NAME IS BRITNEY.
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE SIERRA
CLUB SEATTLE GROUP.
AND I HERE TO EXPRESS HIS
SUPPORT FOR CITY LEVEL CHANGES
THAT PUT THE SEATTLE SEPA
PROCESS IN LINE WITH CURRENT
STATE GUIDELINES.
ENCOURAGING INFILL DEVELOPMENT
IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTS THAT
WE CAN TAKE.
ATTACKING BOTH OF THE SOURCES OF
EMISSIONS AND WELCOMING MORE
EFFICIENT HOMES.
MAKING MORE PEOPLE ABLE TO
WALK, BIKE, AND TRANSIT.
I THINK THAT THESE ARE
INCREDIBLY REASONABLE CHANGES
THAT WOULD PROTECT OUR
ENVIRONMENT, ALLOW US TO ACT
QUICKLY AND SUPPORT OUR
ENVIRONMENT.
>> STEVE?
>> YOUR ALL FOR SAVING THE
TREES IN THE AMAZON.
HOW ABOUT THE TREES IN SEATTLE?
WERE GOING TO STRIP SEPA IF
YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SEPA MOVE
FASTER , PUT YOUR CLIMATE
CHANGE AND PARKING AND A SCALE
AS THOSE THE TWO ZONES COME
TOGETHER.
TAKE A LOOK AT ACCESS.
HAVE A REAL DESIGN REVIEW.
NOT JUST THE SIMPLE THINGS THAT
YOU ARE DOING NOW.
DESIGN REVIEW IS NOT DOING HIS
JOB.
IF THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE BACKSTOP
IS GETTING TOO MANY THINGS.
SO WHY IS IT GETTING TOO MANY
THINGS?
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT DOING
ANYTHING AT THE FRONT IN.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE
OUT OF THE ZONING THE PEOPLE
WHO LIVE AND WORK NEAR THE
PROJECTS.
WE MUST PUT PEOPLE BACK INTO
THE PROCESS OR YOU WILL HAVE
CONTINUED PROBLEMS.
MANY PEOPLE WONDER WHAT THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEVELOPER
APPROVED THE DEMOCRATS.
YOU HAVE THE TRUMP AGENDA FOR
LAND-USE.
BIG TIME DEVELOPERS GET
WHATEVER THEY WANT.
THE SMALLER DEVELOPERS AND
PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST TRYING TO
PUT A PORCH ON THEIR HOUSE.
THEY DO NOT LIKE YOU THAT MUCH.
BUT THE BIG TIME DEVELOPERS
SEEM TO BE YOUR FRIENDS.
LET'S COME BACK TO THE CITIZENS
AND BRING PEOPLE INTO THE
PROCESS THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN
VERY HARD TO GET CLOSE TO I
KEEP BUMPING INTO A SIGN THAT
SAYS PROPERTY OF THE BIG TIME
DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY.
I DON'T YOU THINK YOU REALLY
CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DAN AND I'M THE
PRESIDENT OF THE WASHINGTON
AREA DISTRICT COUNSEL.
WE REPRESENT WORKERS ON THE
WATERFRONT.
AND WE OPPOSE DOCKETING THE
AMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL
LAND.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE
INDUSTRIAL LAND PANEL STUDY.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL
FIND THAT THEY ARE FULLY
UTILIZED.
YOUR MEMBER THE GREAT RECESSION
WE HAD DURING THAT TIME THE
LANDS WERE IN THE 90% OF USAGE.
AND IT DID NOT DECLINE.
THE MEMBERSHIP GREW BY 30%.
THERE ARE JOBS OUT THERE.
I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE
PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
PIER 1. WHICH IS A ZONED
INDUSTRIAL IS FULLY UTILIZED.
IT HAS INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND
IT SUPPORTS INDUSTRIAL JOBS IN
THE CITY.
>> MY NAME IS DAVID WARD.
AND I WILL BE SPEAKING TO THE
SEPA ISSUES.
CHANGES TO THE SEPA POLICY IS
OUTRAGEOUS AND GUTTING OF SEPA.
AND AN ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL BILL.
IT'S VERY PRO-DEVELOPER. GETTING
THAT SAY OVER SEPA ISSUES AFTER
THEY'VE WAIVED MANY
REQUIREMENTS IS DAMAGING TO THE
PUBLIC IT EXEMPTS OF FURTHER
PROJECTS FROM SEPA REVIEW AND
LIMITS THE EXAMINER TO 120
DAYS.
THAT'S DAMAGING FOR POLICIES.
REMOVING THE LANGUAGE TO STOP
PROJECTS FROM MOVING FORWARD
WHILE UNDER APPEAL ALLOWS
DEVELOPERS TO CONTINUE TO GET
PERMITS THAT INCREASE TRAFFIC
ELIMINATE THE TREES DISPLACED
PEOPLE CREATE INFRASTRUCTURE
PROBLEMS WHICH ARE FURTHER
DAMAGING.
A COMBINATION OF THESE POLICY
CHANGES WILL MAKE IT DEVELOPERS
A STATIC.
IT WILL VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE
DEVELOPER COUNTY TO SEPA.
THEY BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO
THIS FOR YEARS.
I URGE YOU DO NOT DO THIS.
IT'S GOING BE DAMAGING TO THE
CITY AND IS GOING TO MAKE A
LOT OF MONEY FOR THE DEVELOPERS
THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE WHO DID NOT
SIGN UP AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN UP SO THAT
WE CAN HAVE IT ON THE RECORD?
COLLEAGUES I'D LIKE TO EXTEND
FOR ANOTHER 10 MINUTES?
YOU CAN SIGN UP AFTER SPEAKING.
>> MY NAME IS LAUSANNE AND I'M
HERE WITH THE PUBLIC STADIUM
AUTHORITY.
WE UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT
RESERVING JOBS WITHIN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE.
THE PROPOSAL TO LOOK AT A
STADIUM DISTRICT WITH RESPECT
TO THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS
BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS
NO MARITIME USE LEFT.
AND AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED
EARLIER WHEN IT COMES TO
TALKING ABOUT FREIGHT OF
MOBILITY THAT LAND IS ALREADY
COMMERCIALLY ZONED.
IT CAN BE DEVELOPED AS A LOW
RISE OFFICE.
WE HOPE WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO MIXED-
USE DOWN THERE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE POPULATION
IN SEATTLE RIGHT NOW HALF OF
THAT IS UNDER THE AGE OF 35.
IN HOUSING CRISIS HAS DOUBLED
IN THE LAST SIX YEARS.
WE DON'T WANT TO IMPACT
INDUSTRIAL JOBS BUT THERE IS
TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY THERE
NOW WITHIN THIS SMALL AREA TO
DO SOME INNOVATIVE THINGS.
WE'VE GAINED LETTERS OF SUPPORT
REPRESENTING HUNDRED AND 75
DIFFERENT AGENCIES THE ALLIANCE
FOR PIONEER SQUARE.
AND THE RESIDENCE FROM THE
CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL
DISTRICT.
AND FRIENDS OF THE WATERFRONT.
AND THE SEATTLE SPORTS
COMMISSION.
THIS IS BEEN THAT LOOKED AT FOR
MANY YEARS AT ONE POINT IT WAS
WITHIN A FORMER MAYOR'S TOP 10
PRIORITIES.
IT IS CONTINUE TO BE SHELVED SO
THAT EVERY ISSUE WITHIN THE
INDUSTRIAL LANDS OF SEATTLE IS
STUDIED AND COMBINED WITH THE
SMALL AREA IN THE STADIUM
DISTRICT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT IS
UNIQUE AND DESERVES SOME
ATTENTION SOONER THAN THE NEXT
3-4 YEARS.
THANK YOU.
>> HELLO MY NAME IS JESSE AND I
VOLUNTEER WITH THE CAPITOL HILL
RENTER INITIATIVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR
OF THE SEPA REFORM.
THE BILL HAS NOT BEEN PUSHED
FORWARD BY DEVELOPER'S.
IT'S BEEN PUSHED FORWARD BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY IN
SEATTLE.
THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THE SEPA IS
NOT FULFILLING ITS PURPOSE.
IT'S BEING USED TO BLOCK URBAN
INFILL THAT WE NEED TO ADVANCE
OUR CLIMATE GOALS.
I URGE YOU TO MAKE THESE COMMON
SENSE REFORMS AND MAKE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT IN SEATTLE MUCH
EASIER TO DO THAT IS A MENTALLY
WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MEET OUR
CLIMATE CRISIS AND HOUSING
CRISIS.
THANK YOU? HELLO MY NAME IS
JEFFREY . I AM HERE TO SUPPORT
THE CHANGES THAT YOU ARE
PROPOSING FOR SEPA I AM NOT A
DEVELOPER I AM A SUBSTITUTE
TEACHER.
I AM NOT A MEMBER OF ANY
ORGANIZATION.
MY OPINION IS THAT WE HAVE A
CLIMATE CRISIS AND WHENEVER I
READ THE NEWS AND SEE WHAT SEPA
IS A DOING.
I NEVER HEAR THAT SEPA HELPED
US.
I WAS HERE ABOUT WHAT IT IS
STOPPING THE PROPOSALS THAT
WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT.
AND I URGE YOU TO PUSH FORWARD
WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND I KNOW THE DEVELOPERS DO
SUPPORT THIS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY DO
NOT.
BUT THERE IS A LOT MORE PEOPLE
IN SEATTLE THEN DEVELOPER'S.
AND WE SHOULDN'T CROSS
SOMETHING OFF THE LIST BECAUSE
DEVELOPERS A SUPPORTIVE.
I ANTI-CAPITALISTS LIKE THE
REST OF YOU.
WE NEED TO DO THINGS THAT WILL
HELP THE ENVIRONMENT.
THANK YOU.
SEXING THAT THERE ARE NO
ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS WE WILL
CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
THE NEXT ITEM IS A DISCUSSION
AND VOTE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR DOCKING SOLUTION.
A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
POSSIBLE ADOPTION IN 2020 AND
REQUESTING THAT THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND THE SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
>> WE ARE JOINED BY MEMBERS OF
THE COUNCILS CENTRAL STAFF.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELES AND
REFRESH US ON THE PLAN.
>> MOST YEARS THE COUNCIL
PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
MEMBERS TO ADD PROPOSAL.
>> GOOD MORNING WE ARE LISH
WHITSON AND ERIC McCONAGHY,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> WE ARE LOOKING AT PROPOSALS
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE
PUBLIC.
AND DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT
THEY MEET AT THE COUNCIL
CRITERIA TO MOVE FORWARD FOR
FURTHER ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION.
ITEMS THAT ARE DOCKETED WOULD
BE SENT TO THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WOULD BE
REQUESTED TO PROVIDE A
RECOMMENDATION AND IF ANYTHING
IS PROPOSED TO MOVE FORWARD TO
DOING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
RELATED TO THAT.
WE RECEIVED 14 AMENDMENT
PROPOSALS THIS YEAR. TWO OF
THEM MET THE CRITERIA ON THEIR
OWN TO MOVE FORWARD. AND IN
THE STADIUM DISTRICT PROPOSAL
COULD MEET THE CRITERIA IF
CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT THAT
THE MAYOR PROPOSE.
I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE
CRITERIA IN THE RESOLUTION AND
THEN KICK IT OVER TO ERIC TO
DISCUSS THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT
OF YOU.
COUNCILS CRITERIA IS THAT IN AN
AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE LEGAL.
NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND IT NEEDS TO BE PRACTICAL TO
CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT.
THERE HAS TO BE ENOUGH TIME TO
STUDY AT.
STAFF HAS TO BE AVAILABLE TO
STUDY AT. AND IT SHOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL
VISION IF AN AMENDMENT HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROPOSED THEN
THERE NEEDS TO BE A
DEMONSTRATION THAT THINGS HAVE
CHANGED SINCE IT WAS LAST
PROPOSED IF AN AMENDMENT WOULD
CHANGE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THEN
THERE NEEDS TO BE A
DEMONSTRATION THAT THE
CONSULTATION HAPPENED WITH THE
GROUP THAT IS OVERSEEING THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN THERE NEEDS
TO BE A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE
THAT WOULD RESULT FROM THE
AMENDMENT THERE ARE LIMITS ON
THE PROPOALS TO AMEND THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
IT NEEDS TO BE A SUFFICIENT
SIZE THAT IT WOULD BE VISIBLE
ON THE MAP AND RESULT IN A
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE AREA.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
SUSPECT IS THE IDEA THAT IT'S
A PERSONAL CHANGE DON'T GO
THROUGH THE COMP PLAN PROCESS.
BUT IF IT'S AN AREAWIDE IT
NEEDS TO GO THROUGH?
IS THAT THE DISTINCTION?
>> IT HAS TO BE ONE BLOCK OR
LARGER IN SIZE.
>> I WANT TO ALSO SAY THAT THE
CHANGES TO BOUNDARIES TO URBAN
CENTERS.
BECAUSE THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT
BOUNDARY REGARDLESS OF THE
SIZE.
THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE THAT
WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA IF
THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE CRITERIA THAT FOLKS HAVE
BEEN USING.
TO LEAD TO THE RESOLUTION THEN
I WILL JUST STEP THROUGH THE
ACTIONS OF THE RESOLUTION THAT
WAS INTRODUCED.
THE FIRST SECTION THAT WAS
MENTIONED ASKS FOR THE DOCKET.
THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE CHANGES
ONE DEALS WITH AN AREA IN
NORTHGATE.
AND THE SECOND IS WEST IN
SEATTLE.
AND THAT DEALS WITH
MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL
LANDS.
IT TALKS ABOUT LOOKING AT THE
STADIUM DISTRICT PROPOSAL THAT
WAS PROPOSED THIS YEAR AND THE
OVERALL CONTEXT OF INDUSTRIAL
LANDS AS WELL AS REPEATING THE
REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL MADE
BEFORE FOR THREE SITE SPECIFIC
CONSIDERATIONS FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
AND WHEN I SAY BEFORE THEY WERE
DOCKETED PREVIOUSLY AND HAVE
NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION.
THE SECTION 3 IS REGARDING
IMPACT FEES.
THIS WOULD BE LOOKING AT IMPACT
FEES THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR
UNDER STATE LAW THAT WOULD DEAL
WITH PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS, AND
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.
REGARDING PARKS OPEN SPACES,
AND SCHOOL FACILITIES.
SECTION 4 WAS HOUSING.
AND SECTION FIVE MAC HARKENS TO
A PREVIOUS A RESOLUTION.
THIS WOULD ASKED HIM TO DO AN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND BRING
THOSE BACK TO COUNSEL.
THOSE ARE ATTACHED TO THE
RESOLUTION. THOSE PROPOSALS OR
CHANGES TO POLICY.
AND THEN SIX AND SEVEN TAKES
CARE OF THE HEAVY LIFTING THAT
FORMALLY ASKS FOR THE REVIEW SO
THAT THE RECORD IS COMPLETE AND
IT LIFTS THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.
SO THERE'S NOT A BLANK SPOT
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE
THINGS PROPOSED AND WERE NOT
RECOMMENDED FOR REVIEW.
THAT ROUNDS THINGS OUT.
I HAVE ONE REQUEST FOR A
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
I CAN GET TO THAT AFTER
ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
RESOLUTION
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
JUST TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR.
THE RESOLUTION ADDS AMENDMENTS
TO THE DOCKET THEY WOULD ONLY
CAUSE FURTHER STUDY.
IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL DECISION.
AND IT'S JUST FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CRACKED.
>> HISTORICALLY THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
WAS CONSIDERED ON A CONSISTENT
SCHEDULE.
THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT SEEMS
TO HAVE SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT.
THIS YEAR WE DID THEM IN MARCH
LAST YEAR IT WAS DECEMBER.
I'M CURIOUS TO WE HAVE A SENSE
OF WHEN WE WILL CONSIDER THE
PLANS OR IS IT JUST REALLY HARD
TO TELL
>> IN THE COMING YEAR WE SHOULD
BE ON A REGULAR SCHEDULE WHICH
WOULD HAVE THE COUNCIL REVIEW
IN MARCH.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
>> I KNOW THERE ARE PIECES OF
THE LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF US.
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO
GO ABOUT THOSE?
ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH THEM
MORE SUBSTANCE PEACE?
>> I HOPE TO DEAL WITH THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
WITH A LARGER CONVERSATION
ACKNOWLEDGING. I'VE HEARD THE
LAST COUPLE WEEKS FROM BOTH
SIDES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS
CONCERNING THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS
AND THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION.
I HOPE TO PASS THE RESOLUTION
TODAY AS IT IS WITH CONTINUING
DISCUSSIONS WITH AN EXPECTATION
THAT WE WILL CONTINUE AND BRING
THEM BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL ON
MONDAY.
THAT CLARIFIES THE PROCESS?
>> HOPEFULLY IT'S A
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND EASY TO
UNDERSTAND TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
TYPICALLY WITH THE RESOLUTION
DEALING WITH A DOCKETING.
IT DOESN'T CALL FOR THE MAYOR'S
CONCURRENCE.
QUITE OFTEN IT DOES CALL FOR
THE MAYOR CONCURRING.
IN THIS CASE I WILL OWN THAT
GIFT.
I PREPARED IT AND REALIZED THAT
THIS RESOLUTION THAT IT IT'S
THE COUNCIL'S FORMAL REQUEST
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE MAYOR TO
CONCUR.
THIS WOULD REMOVE THE MAYOR'S
CONCURRENCE.
THAT IS ALL IT DOES.
>> I WOULD MOVE THE GOOF
AMENDMENT.
>> THAT'S PRETTY GREAT THAT
IT'S IN THE RECORD THAT
AMENDMENT IS NAMED AFTER ME AS
THEIR SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
PLEASE ESSAY AYE.
>> IT'S A REAL AMENDMENT.
SO IF IT'S OKAY I LIKE TO
PROCEED AND MOVE FORWARD WITH
PASSING THE RESOLUTION WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT AN AMENDMENT
COMES ON MONDAY FOR THE FULL
COUNCIL.
>> I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
BE HERE.
AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD
TODAY.
I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
CAME TO LIGHT ON THIS DISCUSSION
AND ESPECIALLY IN THE
DISCUSSION WITH THE PUBLIC
TODAY DRIVES HOME THE DESIRE TO
KEEP WORKING ON US TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE IS A SENSE OF
URGENCY LOOKING AT INDUSTRIAL
LANDS THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE
LENS.
WE HEARD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PANEL OR TASK FORCE I AM
INTERESTED IN SEEING IF WE CAN
ENGAGE IN A CONVERSATION ON THE
AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN HAD WORKED ON.
AND I SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
I DON'T SEE A NUMBER.
YOU HAVE COPIES OF THIS?
>> I DO HAVE COPIES.
>> IF WE COULD I WOULD LOVE TO
TALK ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THIS
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT.
>> CHAIR IF I COULD JUMP IN?
MAYBE BEFORE WE CAN TALK
SPECIFICALLY TO THIS AMENDMENT
I WOULD LOVE TO SPEND A FEW
MINUTES TALKING ABOUT POLICY
QUESTIONS.
I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT TECHNICAL THINGS.
I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS A BUNCH.
THE LEGISLATION IS CONFUSING
AND I COULD USE SOME
CLARIFICATION THE DISCUSSION IS
AROUND MANUFACTURABLE
AMENDMENTS AND WHAT WE ARE
DOING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL
ZONES.
I WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN
ASKED EVERY YEAR THAT I HAVE
BEEN HERE FOR VARIOUS CHANGES
TO INDUSTRIAL LANDS.
IN MORE RECENT YEARS IT'S
BECOME CLEAR THAT IT'S
CONTROVERSIAL WHEN WE START
TALKING ABOUT INDUSTRIAL LANDS.
THERE'S MULTIPLE PARTIES.
GENERALLY PARTIES THAT I WANT
TO SUPPORT THAT THERE IS
CONFLICT THERE.
BATTLING OUT OVER AMENDMENTS
SEEMS LIKE A DIFFICULT AND
INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO RESOLVE
INDUSTRIAL LAND POLICY.
WE HAVE ASKED THE EXECUTIVE, I
WILL SAY THAT BROUGHT BECAUSE
THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE MAYORS.
WE'VE ASKED THEM TO COME FORWARD
WITH A PROPOSAL FOR POLICIES
MOVING FORWARD.
THAT BRINGS TOGETHER THESE
PARTIES THAT HAVE CONFLICTS
AROUND SPECIFIC PARCELS.
AND ULTIMATELY DIFFERENT
VISIONS.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF ALIGNMENT
. THAT THINGS AREN'T
NECESSARILY WORKING GREAT FOR
ANYBODY.
THE HOPE FOR ME HAS BEEN THAT
IF WE HAVE A POLICY THAT A
MAYOR WOULD PROPOSE AND THAT
THE COUNCIL WOULD WEIGH IN ON
THEN IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE
STRAIGHTFORWARD TO CONSIDER
PARCEL CONDITIONS CONSISTENT
WITH THE POLICY.
FOR REASONS THAT I DON'T FULLY
UNDERSTAND BUT THAT ARE FAIR
AND LEGITIMATE THAT INDUSTRIAL
GROUP HAS BEEN CONVENIENT.
NO POLICY HAS COME FORWARD.
AND THE CONVENING HAS BEEN
SPORADIC.
I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THAT
IS A NECESSARY STEP BEFORE WE
CAN LEGITIMATELY LOOK AT
INDUSTRIAL LAND.
WE HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES MOST
RECENTLY WE WITHDREW A SMALL
PARCEL NEAR SEATTLE PUBLIC
UNIVERSITY.
THE REASON I WAS COUPLE GOING
FOR WITH THAT WAS BECAUSE ALL
THE PARTIES WERE HERE AND THEY
WERE ALIGNED WITH THAT.
THERE WAS A BROAD CONSENSUS.
THERE ARE FEW PARCELS WHERE
THERE IS A BROAD CONSENSUS.
AND WE ARE AT A PLACE WHERE
VARIOUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE THE POWER TO
VETO OR STOP SOMETHING GOING
FORWARD.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH POWER TO
MAKE CHANGES THAT COULD BE
WORTHWHILE.
AND I THINK WITH PROPER
LEADERSHIP THAT COULD HAPPEN.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS WE
MOVE FORWARD WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS.
AND I HOPE THAT WE ARE IN
AGREEMENT IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT
ONCE AGAIN DIRECTS, ASKS OR
REQUEST THE EXECUTIVE TO
CONTINUE THIS PROCESS TO
CONVENE FOLKS WHO HAVE INTEREST
IN INDUSTRIAL LANDS. AND COME
FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT
THE PUBLIC CAN EVALUATE.
IN THE LIGHT OF THAT, WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITH THIS
PROPOSAL. CENTRAL STAFF I'M
SORRY AND I HAVEN'T GIVEN
CLARITY.
WOULD BE THAT WE NOT MOVE
FORWARD WITH A DOCKETING ANY OF
THE LAND CHANGES.
AND THAT WE ASKED THE EXECUTIVE
TO COME FORWARD I BELIEVE THE
EXECUTIVE IS PREPARING TO DO
THAT MOMENTARILY.
AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN DO THIS IN
A WAY THAT WE ARE ASKING
SOMETHING THAT SHE PLANS TO DO
ANYWAY.
THEIR PROJECTS AND THE QUEUE
THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING
ON.
AND COLLUDING A FEW SPECIFIC
PARCELS.
THE CITY COUNCIL THE MOMENT IS
NOT PREPARED.
IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO DO A
DOCKETING ACTION UNTIL THERE
WAS SOME CLARITY ABOUT A
PROPOSAL FROM THE MAYOR.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE THAT
LANGUAGE READY TODAY AND I FEAR
WORDSMITHING THAT ON-THE-FLY
WITHOUT LEGAL REVIEW IS
PROBLEMATIC. ULTIMATELY I
WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
THERE ARE PIECES OF MY PREVIOUS
AMENDMENT TOUCHED ON.
ONE WAS REMOVING THE REFERENCE
TO PARCELS THAT ARE LISTED IN
SECTION 2. AND INCLUDE THOSE
IN A MORE BROAD STATEMENT.
THESE PROJECTS ARE PREMATURE TO
MAKE A DECISION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN AND
THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ASKED IF
THE EXECUTIVE HAS IDENTIFIED
THE STAKEHOLDERS, TIMELINE AND
SO FORTH.
IT WAS STILL UNCLEAR.
AND I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED THAT
WE ARE MOVING IN THAT
DIRECTION.
I DO AGREE THAT IT IS BEST TO
HAVE THAT COMPREHENSIVE
CONVERSATION ABOUT INDUSTRIAL
LANDS.
THIS IS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT IS
BEEN ONGOING FOR SO MANY YEARS.
MY THOUGHT PROCESS IN ACCEPTING
THE RECOMMENDATION WHEN I SPOKE
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CHAIRS THEY TOLD ME WERE NOT
GOING GET INTO THE INDUSTRIAL
LAND CONVERSATION BUT THIS MET
THE CRITERIA. I ACCEPTED ON
THAT RECOGNITION BECAUSE IT
MEANT THAT CRITERIA.
I THINK IT IS BEST TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION COMPREHENSIVELY.
WE WERE CLOSE A COUPLE OF YEARS
AGO.
AND I ENCOURAGED WITH THE FINAL
LANGUAGE.
HOPING TO FIND A RESOLUTION
THAT WOULD BE MOST
COMPREHENSIVE.
>> CAN I ASK A SPECIFIC
TECHNICAL QUESTION.
WHEN YOU WALKED THROUGH THE
CRITERIA.
YOU SAID YOU WILL NOT
RECONSIDER SOMETHING THAT WAS
CONSIDERED BEFORE LESSERS A
SUBSEQUENT CHANGE.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN PAST
RESOLUTIONS.
SIMILARLY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
PIER 1 EVERY YEAR THAT I HAVE
BEEN ON THE COUNCIL.
IS STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE
CRITERIA?
BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONSIDERED?
>> THEY HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AND
ADDED TO THE DOCKET IN PREVIOUS
YEARS.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS NOT PROVIDED
RECOMMENDATION ON THEM.
SO THE BOOK HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED
ON THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS
BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN THE
RESOLUTION.
>> I DO NOT HEAR ANY
DISAGREEMENT WITH ANYTHING THAT
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THE
LANGUAGE.
I THINK THE APPROACH THAT
YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS A VERY
HEALTHY CONVERSATION TO REQUIRE
THE EXECUTIVE IF THERE'S GOING
TO BE A COMMITMENT.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE HERE IN
THREE OR FOUR YEARS HAVING THE
SAME CONVERSATION YET AGAIN.
I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO
RECOGNIZE THAT IDENTIFYING AREAS
AS THE CURRENT LEGISLATION DOES
DOES FEEL LIKE A CONTINUATION
OF THE PIECEMEAL APPROACH.
AND AS WE LOOK AT THE NEED TO
LOOK COMPREHENSIVELY ACROSS THE
CITY AND ACROSS ALL THE PARCELS
AND RECOGNIZE THAT IT NEEDS TO
BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
WORKFORCE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE ON
THE HORIZON IN INDUSTRIAL AND
EMERGING INDUSTRIES AND THE
NEED TO CREATE ADDITIONAL
HOUSING.
I FEEL LIKE IT REALLY DOES MAKE
MORE SENSE TO PULL THAT
LANGUAGE TODAY AS SUGGESTED IN
THE AMENDMENT AND WORK BETWEEN
NOW AND FULL COUNCIL ON MONDAY
TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU BOTH
HAVE ARTICULATED.
TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A
CLEAR TIMELINE FOR THAT TASK
FORCE AND THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE
ESTABLISHED.
AND THAT WE REAFFIRM OUR
COMMITMENT TO LOOK AT THIS
THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE LENS.
I LOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU
HAVE USE.
MY DESIRE TODAY WOULD BE THAT
WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT IN
SECTION 2 AS PROPOSED TO SHOW
THE NEED TO NOT PULL OUT
CERTAIN COMPONENTS AND NOT SILO
THE ANALYSIS AND EFFORT.
I THINK WE CAN ALSO RECOGNIZE
IN THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD
THERE IS A REAL INTEREST IN
MAKING SURE THAT WE AS A CITY
THAT WE ARE INVESTING IN
PROTECTING AND GROWING GOOD
LIVING WAGE JOBS.
UNION JOBS.
AND THERE IS A BALANCE THAT WE
NEED TO CREATE HOUSING.
I WOULDN'T SAY ADDITIONAL
OFFICE SPACE.
AND WE AS WE LOOK AT THE LAND
THROUGH THIS COMPREHENSIVE
ANALYSIS THAT IS POTENTIALLY ON
THE HORIZON WITH TIMELINES AND
UNDERSTANDING WHO'S AT THE
TABLE AND WHAT THE DIRECTIVE
IS.
WE COULD DO THINGS LIKE
CONSIDER WORKING PORTS AND
HOUSING.
THINGS LIKE WHAT WE'VE DONE
WITH CREATING BIKE LANES.
THAT IS MY BICYCLE ROUTE EVERY
DAY. I
WRITE DOWN EAST MARGINAL WAY.
AND I HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
WAVING AT TRUCK DRIVERS EVERY
DAY.
AND THEY BEEN TREMENDOUS TO
WORK WITH IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
IN EITHER OR OR. I
FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF ANY
AMENDMENT THAT YOU BRING
FORWARD ON MONDAY TO BRING A
CLEAR SCHEDULE AND
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE TASK
FORCE WILL BE WORKING UP I
WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE I
DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THIS
PIECEMEAL APPROACH WHEN A CORD
NEEDED STRATEGY IS WHAT WE
REALLY NEED TO SUPPORT GOOD
LIVING WAGE JOBS.
AND ANALYSIS ACROSS OUR CITY.
AS IT IS GROWING TO MATCH THE
NEEDS FOR INDUSTRY.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU
CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT
OF YOU AS PROPOSED.
>> I SEE THAT THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF PATHS THAT WE COULD
GO FOR AT THE MOMENT.
IT'S ABOUT PROCESS AND TIMING.
LEAVING THE LEGISLATION
UNCHANGED.
I HAVE A SEPARATE AMENDMENT
THAT I WILL BRING FORWARD LATER.
WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WE
WORK ON A COMPREHENSIVE
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN
PASSING AND UNAMENDED PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.
I KNOW SOME PEOPLE IN THE
AUDIENCE SUPPORT AND OTHERS ARE
FEARFUL OF.
ALTERNATIVELY I HEAR YOU
PROPOSING MAKING AN AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD STRIKE THE LANGUAGE
OF THE STADIUM DISTRICT.
AND REMOVE THE PARCELS PROPOSED
FOR THE DOCKETING.
TODAY I DO SUPPORT REMOVING SO
THAT WE COULD REMOVE THOSE
TODAY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THAT IS WHAT I'M HOPING TO
DO AND THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE
DONE.
IN MY MIND THE END RESULT IS
IDENTICAL.
THE END RESULT IS THAT WE DO
PART OF IT TODAY OR SAVE IT ALL
FOR MONDAY
>> IT'S MY PREFERENCE THAT WE
PASS THE UNDERLINING BILL WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE
WORKING TOWARDS AN AMENDMENT ON
MONDAY SO WE CAN HAVE THE FULL
SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL? IS
THERE CONCERN WITH THE
AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN?
HAS IT BEEN RUN BY LAW?
>> WE'VE ASKED FOR A REVIEW
JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK AS WE HAD
THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IN FRONT
OF US.
BASE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN RUN
BY LAW?
WE ARE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT
STRIKING LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN
RUN BY LAW.
THERE WOULD BE A LEGAL CONCERN
HERE?
>> HOPEFULLY NOT.
I WANT TO AIR ON THE SIDE OF
CAUTION.
>> EITHER WAY IF WE WERE NOT TO
TAKE ACTION WE COULD FIGURE OUT
THAT WE COULD ALSO ADD THAT
BACK.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IF YOU
WOULD MAKE YOUR CASE AS TO WHY
YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE
ACTION TODAY.
>> I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF
THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALL
INTERESTED IN THE SAME GOALS.
WE ALL ARE INTERESTED IN A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ALLOWS
FOR US TO LOOK AT THE CHANGING
NATURE OF OUR CITY IN THE
GROWING POPULATION AND THE NEED
TO ENCOURAGE MORE OPPORTUNITIES
THAT ARE FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF
THE LEGISLATION THAT YOU WILL
CONSIDER IN A MINUTE.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS
THAT HAVE COME TO TESTIFY.
AND EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING TO
CREATE A MORE INCLUSIVE AND
DENSE CITY.
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WE
LOOK AT THE INDUSTRIAL LANDS
THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS.
IN THE WAY THAT THE LEGISLATION
HAS BEEN WRITTEN WITH THESE
THREE AREAS SPECIFICALLY PULLED
OUT DOES NOT FEEL THAT IT IS IN
LINE WITH THE GOALS THAT HAVE
BEEN ARTICULATED.
IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED 2015 AND
2016.
THE WAYS IN WHICH WE HAVE ASKED
FOR THIS ANALYSIS.
AND IT FEELS LIKE THAT THE
STILL NEEDS TO OCCUR.
IF WE GO DOWN THE ROUTE OF
HAVING THEM CALLED OUT THAT WE
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT COMPREHENSIVE GOAL.
AND THAT INSURERS THAT THOSE
DETAILS DO LOOK AT CITYWIDE
THAT THEY ARE COMPREHENSIVE IN
NATURE.
MY INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE NOT SIGNALING ANY
INTEREST AND PARCELING OUT AND
WANT THAT COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS
TO BE COMPLETED.
I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO MOVE
THE CONSIDERATION SO THAT WE
CAN SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT
THE GOAL IS NOT TO PULL OUT
THESE PIECES BUT CREATE A
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE A LANGUAGE
THAT INCLUDES THAT VISION THAT
HAS BEEN ARTICULATED.
>> ONE THING LET'S CALL THIS
THE AMENDMENT TO NOT DOCKET THE
STADIUM PROPOSAL.
AS I HAVE AMENDMENT THAT IS
ALSO LABELED AND I DON'T WANT
TO CONFUSE THE VIEWERS AND
READERS.
I THINK THIS IS MEANINGFUL AND
WE END UP IN THE SAME PLACE.
I SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
IF WE MOVE THROUGH WITH THIS
MY INTENT WILL BE CLEAR TO
REMOVE IT AT FULL COUNCIL.
I'M CONCERNED THAT I WILL SPEND
STAFF TIMES RESPONDING TO CALLS
US TO WHY THIS IS IN THEIR AND
WE WILL JUST HAVE TO EXPLAIN
AND I THINK I WILL SIDE WITH
YOU TO REMOVE IT NOW BECAUSE
THAT IS CLEARLY WHERE I WANT TO
GO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THERE IS MORE WORK TO DO.
IF YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT
AMENDMENT I SECONDED.
>> I MOVE THE AMENDMENT TO
CREATE THE TIMELINE AND THE
DETAILS NEEDED FOR THE TASK
FORCE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING
FOR FOR THE LAST MONTH.
>> TO BE CLEAR IT DOESN'T
DOCKET THE THREE SITE-SPECIFIC.
AND I SECOND THAT.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND
ALL THOSE IN SUPPORT?
AYE ALL AGAINST?
I WILL ABSTAIN.
OKAY.
IF THERE IS NO MORE DISCUSSION
THEN I MOVED TO ADOPT READ THE
RESOLUTION?
>> I HAVE MORE DISCUSSION.
I HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT
IS TITLED AMENDMENT 1. CAN I
ASK YOU TO DROP THESE OFF TO
THE TABLE.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT AROUND
PUBLIC HEALTH CLIMATE CHANGE
AND FOSSIL FUEL STORAGE.
IT WOULD ADD A SECTION, SECTION
6 THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS.
THE COUNCIL REQUEST THAT THE
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND
ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE COMMITTEE
DRAFT, EVALUATE, AND UNDERTAKE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE LAND-USE ELEMENTS THAT
WOULD CLARIFY THE INTENT TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEET
CLIMATE GOALS BY LIMITING
FOSSIL FUEL REDUCTION AND
STORAGE.
WE HEARD BRIEFLY IN PUBLIC
COMMENT TODAY AND WE HEARD OVER
THE PAST FEW YEARS ABOUT
PUTTING A MORATORIUM AND MOVING
TOWARDS A LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD PROHIBIT FOSSIL FUEL
STORAGE. AND NEW FOSSIL FUEL
INVESTMENTS IN THE COUNTY.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ASK THAT
WE GET A RECOMMENDATION BACK IN
THE PLAN TO DO SOMETHING
SIMILAR NEXT YEAR. I WILL MOVE
AMENDMENT ONE OF THERE'S NO
FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE AYE.
AMENDMENT PASSES.
ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS?
DISCUSSION? BUT I JUST WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU.
I KNOW YOU'RE PREFERENCE WAS
ARTICULATE.
AND I WANT TO UNDERSCORE MY
APPRECIATION FOR YOUR CLEAR
MESSAGE TO US, THE PUBLIC, AND
EXECUTIVE THAT YOU WANT TO SEE
THAT TASK FORCE MOVED FORWARD.
SO WERE NOT IN THIS HOLDING
PATTERN.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU BRING
FORWARD ON MONDAY.
AGAIN JUST TO BE CLEAR.
I TRY WITH THIS ROLE OF LAND-
USE TO BE OBJECTIVE AS I CAN BE
IN TERMS OF DECISION-MAKING IN
REGARDS TO THE COLLECTIVE
INTEREST.
IF THERE IS NO MORE DISCUSSION
I MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
31896.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR POLICE SAY
AYE ? THE RESOLUTION PASSES.
THE NEXT ITEM.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY.
WE WILL BE BACK BEFORE THE FULL
COUNCIL ON AUGUST 12.
THE NEXT ITEM IS A BRIEFING ON
THE UPDATES OF THE CITY SEPA
POLICIES.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE
ASKED TO LOOK AT RECENT UPDATES
MADE BY THE STATE TO THE SEPA
CODE I WORKED WITH
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN TO
PROPOSE THIS AMENDMENT.
TO FOCUS ON SEPA AND THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
TENT.
LISH WHITSON IS BACK . WOULD
YOU GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THE
PROPOSAL?
>> I THOUGHT I WOULD TALK ABOUT
THIS . WE WILL BE TALKED ABOUT
THIS AT THE NEXT FOUR MINUTES.
I THOUGHT I WOULD GIVE SOME
BACKGROUND ON SEPA.
TO DEFINE SOME KEY TERMS THAT
WILL BE COMING UP.
THE WASHINGTON STATE
ENVIRONMENT A POLICY ACT WAS
ADOPTED IN 1971.
REQUIRING REVIEW BEFORE
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.
CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU HEARD FROM
SOME OF THE COMMENTS THIS
MORNING.
SEPA REQUIRES THAT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BE
COMPLETED BEFORE A GOVERNMENT
ACTION IS TAKEN.
THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO DECISION-MAKERS
REGARDING ADVERSE IMPACTS OF
ACTION THAT DECISION-MAKERS ARE
CONSIDERING.
UNLIKE OTHER AREAS OF CITY
REGULATION.
SEPA IS DRIVEN BY WASHINGTON
STATE LAW.
THE REVISED WASHINGTON CODE
DICTATES WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN
THE CITY SEPA REGULATIONS.
THE NEW MUNICIPAL CODE MIRRORS
OF VERBATIM SECTIONS OF THE
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
IT CAN BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN
THE WASHINGTON STATE
REQUIREMENTS.
REQUIRING REVIEW, BUT IT CANNOT
BE MORE PERMISSIVE THAN STATE
LAW. SOME OF THE KEY TERMS
THAT YOU WILL BE HEARING AS WE
TALK ABOUT THIS.
ACTION.
UNDER SEPA.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TERMINOLOGY
THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY USED IN
OTHER PARTS OF THE LAW.
UNDER SEPA ACTION IS NEW OR
CONTINUING ACTIVITY TO RECRUIT
. IT INCLUDES REVISED RULES
AND REGULATIONS, OR LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS. IT DIVIDES ACTIONS
INTO TWO CATEGORIES.
PROJECT ACTIONS WERE SOMETHING
IS GOING TO BE BUILT.
AND NON-PROJECT ACTIONS WHICH
ARE PLANS, POLICIES, AND
REGULATIONS.
IT REQUIRES DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
REVIEW BECAUSE THERE ARE
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CERTAINTY.
LIKE BUILDING A STREET COMPARED
TO ADOPTING REGULATIONS ON HOW
STREETS WILL BE BUILT IN THE
FUTURE.
SEPA DEFINES ELEMENTS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT WHICH ARE SPECIFIC
TOPICS THAT NEED TO BE
CONSIDERED.
THOSE ARE SPECIFIED UNDER THE
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
AND THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
UNLIKE SOME COMMENTS THAT YOU
RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT
A REQUIREMENT UNDER STATE
REGULATIONS.
UNDER SEPA THERE ARE A LIST OF
PROJECTS THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE
STUDIED.
UNLESS SEPA IS EXEMPTED NEEDS
TO BE STUDIED.
THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS A
CATEGORY OF ACTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT IS TAKING THE
DOESN'T NEED TO BE STUDIED
UNDER SEPA.
AT THE END OF THE SEPA REVIEW
PROCESS THERE IS A
DETERMINATION.
A PROPOSAL THAT HAS A POTENTIAL
FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
IT'S PUBLISHED UNDER
SIGNIFICANCE.
THAT THERE IS A PROBABILITY
THAT THERE WILL BE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WHICH MEANS
THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STUDY WOULD NEED TO BE DEVELOPED
IF THERE IS DETERMINATION OF
SIGNIFICANCE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT MUST BE
PREPARED.
AND GENERALLY ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS ARE DRAFTED
IN MULTIPLE CATEGORIES.
THE FINAL STATEMENT ARE SUBJECT
TO APPEAL. IT CAN BE
DETERMINED AFTER AN APPROVAL OF
AN ACTION.
A SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT IS GIVEN
TO THE AGENCY DECISION.
AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON
THE APPELLATE TO SHOW THAT IT
WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.
THERE'S A CONCEPT OF THE LEAD
AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT THAT IS
REQUIRED TO MEET THE SEPA
REQUIREMENTS.
THEY ARE REVIEWING PERMANENT
APPLICATIONS.
SO COUNSEL BILL 119600 THERE
ARE THREE MAIN CHANGES THAT
WOULD BE ADOPTED.
THE FIRST WOULD BE TO
INCORPORATE EXEMPTIONS TO NON-
PROJECT EXEMPTIONS THAT THE
STATE LAW SAYS CANNOT BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CITY LAW
CAN BE MORE STRINGENT THAN
STATE LAW.
CURRENT CITY LOT IS MORE
STRINGENT UNDER THESE CATEGORIES
WE NEED TO LOOSEN THE ROLES TO
BE CONSISTENT.
IT WOULD INCREASE THRESHOLDS
UNDER THE STATE SEPA EXEMPTION
IT WOULD ADD A TIMELINE. THERE
ARE TWO CATEGORIES THAT WOULD
BE INCORPORATED.
IN 2012 THE STATE LEGISLATURE
AMENDED SEPA REGULATIONS TO
EXEMPT AMENDMENTS TO
DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY ONCE THE PLAN HAS
BEEN ADOPTED ONCE OR A
DEVELOPMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT
FLOW IN THE PLAN HAS BEEN
STUDIED THAN THOSE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS DO NOT ALSO NEED TO
BE STUDY.
SIMILARLY REGULATIONS TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
PROVIDING INCREASED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR
CRITICAL AREAS, SHORELINE AREA,
AND AMENDMENTS TO TECHNICAL CODE
TO ENSURE THAT TECHNICAL CODE,
THE BUILDING ENERGY, HOUSING,
PLUMBING CODES ARE CONSISTENT
WITH STATE LAW THOSE WOULD
BECOME CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
UNDER THIS REGULATION.
THESE WERE ALL PERMITTED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER
STATE LAW IN 2012.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INCORPORATED
WITH THE CITY REGULATIONS.
THIS YEAR IT THE LEGISLATIVE WAS
INTRODUCED THAT THESE ACTIONS
ARE NOT EXEMPT BUT THERE ARE NO
APPEALS PERMITTED OF THE SEPA
CITY DETERMINATION.
IF YOU DECIDE TO AMEND THE SEPA
AND ACT ON THE PROPOSAL NO
APPEALS WOULD BE PERMITTED FOR
OF ZONING 500 OR MORE ACRES
AROUND A COMMUTER LIGHT RAIL
STATION, 250 ACRES WITH
FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE,
ALLOWING DUPLEXES, AND SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED LOT.
ALLOWING ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS ON LOTS THAT MEET CERTAIN
SIZE LIMITS AND THAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN DONE.
ADOPTING A SUB AREA PLAN,
PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE LIKE
WHAT WAS DONE FOR YESLER
TARA'S.
ALLOWING FOR DUPLEXES OR
SUBDIVISION OF LOTS INTO
SMALLER PARCELS.
THIS YEAR'S BILL PERMANENTLY
STATED THAT TRANSPORTATION
ANALYSIS UNDER SEPA WOULD NOT
BE SUBJECT TO APPEAL BASED ON
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS.
IF IMPACT FEES ARE PROPOSED.
OR IF THE CITY'S TRAFFIC AND
PARKING IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED
BY THE CITY ORDINANCES
PRELIMINARY REVIEW SAYS THAT
TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACTS ARE
NOT MITIGATED BY THE CITY
ORDINANCES.
SO SOMETHING WE NEED TO CHANGE
OR IMPACT WOULD BE APPLIED TO
THE PROVISIONS TO GO INTO
EFFECT.
THE SECOND BIG CHANGE IS TO
INCREASE THE THRESHOLDS OF
DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN VILLAGES.
NOT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSALS ARE SUBJECT TO SEPA
TODAY.
THE STATE ALLOWS FOR HIGHER
THRESHOLDS FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE
IN THE INFO PLAN.
ACROSS THE CITY BUILDINGS WITH
FEWER THAN FOUR UNITS ARE
EXEMPT.
THEY DO NOT GO THROUGH SEPA.
IN THE URBAN CENTERS THE
THRESHOLD IS A 200 UNITS.
THAT ONLY APPLIES UNTIL THE
GROWTH ESTIMATE HAS BEEN MET.
AND THEN A PROJECT WITH 20 OR
MORE UNITS NEEDS TO GO THROUGH
SEPA.
THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS ONLY APPLY UP TO
THE GROWTH ESTIMATE AND THE
RATIONALE IS BASICALLY THAT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT HAS
BEEN STUDIED, AND WE DO NOT
NEED TO REDO THAT ANALYSIS ON A
PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS.
THE LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF YOU
WOULD APPLY THE SAME EXEMPTIONS
AS FOR URBAN CENTERS AND ONCE
IN URBAN VILLAGE MEETS THE
GROWTH ESTIMATE THAT THE LOWER
REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY. THE
MEMO I PREPARED FOR TODAY'S
MEETING HAS INFORMATION ON
WHERE THEY ARE IN RELATION TO
THE ESTIMATE.
ROOSEVELT IS AT OR ABOVE THE 20
YEAR ESTIMATE GIVEN THE AMOUNT
OF GROWTH THAT IS HAPPENING
THERE.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE 0%
GROWTH.
>> THAT IS ESSENTIALLY ALL OF
OUR URBAN AREAS?
>> THERE IS A DISTINCTION.
WE ONLY HAVE ESTIMATES FOR
URBAN GROWTH.
WE DON'T HAVE THEM FOR
RESIDENTIAL URBAN VILLAGES.
FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT
SEPA EXEMPTIONS WOULD ONLY
APPLY FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
THE GROUND-LEVEL RETAIL AND IN
URBAN VILLAGE, THEN THAT WOULD
INCLUDE COMMERCIAL SPACE. BUT
WE CAN GET INTO THE WEEDS ABOUT
NON-MIXED-USE.
>> WE WANTED TO CHANGE THAT
THAT WOULD JUST REQUIRE US TO
HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL GROSS
THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
PROCESS.
>> RIGHT.
>> THE FINAL MAJOR CHANGE IS TO
ADD A TIMELINE FOR HEARING EXAM
OR APPEAL.
OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS THERE
HAVE BEEN 58 APPEALS OF SEPA
DETERMINATIONS.
THE SHORTEST APPEAL WAS A 33
DAYS.
THE AVERAGE LENGTH WAS 124 DAYS.
RECENTLY SOME COMPLICATED
APPEALS WITH MULTIPLE
APPELLANTS.
PARTICULARLY THE MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY APPEAL IT
TOOK 392 DAYS BUT HOW DO TIME
LIMITS FOR APPEALS COMPARED TO
OTHER JURISDICTIONS?
BUT THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
KING COUNTY HAS TIME LIMITS.
THEY HAVE A 90 DAY LIMIT FOR AN
APPEAL THAT THE HEARING
EXAMINER CAN EXTEND TO 120 DAYS.
AND THEN IT CAN BE LONGER IF
ALL PARTIES AGREE.
THIS TAKES THAT FRAMEWORK.
BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE.
THE LIMIT WOULD BE 120 DAYS,
150 DAYS. BASICALLY IF THEY
DECIDE THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE
IT WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE
AGREEMENT OF ALL THE PARTIES.
WE LOOKED AT THE APPEAL OF THE
FINAL. IF BOTH APPEALS WERE
LIMITED TO 150 DAYS FOUR MONTHS
WOULD'VE BEEN SAVED FROM THAT
PROCESS.
IT WOULD'VE CREATED MORE WORK
FOR THE ATTORNEYS AND THE
APPELLANT UP FRONT, THEY
WOULD'VE HAD TO WORK FASTER AND
THAT THEY MUTUALLY AGREED TO
EXTEND THAT TIMEFRAME.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN COMPLETED FOUR
MONTHS EARLIER.
>> I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE
CHECK ON THE QUESTION.
WERE YOU INTERESTED IN
COMPARISONS TO OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES?
THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AS WE
LOOK AT MINNEAPOLIS AND ALL THE
GREAT ATTENTION THAT THEY
RECEIVED.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT
COMPARISON AS WELL?
>> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THE COMPLEXITY OF DIFFERENT
STATE LAWS ARE GOING TO MAKE IT
PRETTY HARD.
I DON'T WANT TO SEND YOU ON A
TWO WEEK RESEARCH PROJECT IF IT
IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT MAY BE THAT THE STATE LAWS
ARE JUST SO DIFFERENT THAT IT'S
HARD TO COMPARE.
>> I WILL SEE WHAT I CAN DO.
THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF STATES
THAT HAVE SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS. AND THEY MAY BE GOOD
COMPARISONS.
>> HOW LONG DOES THE HEARING
EXAMINER APPEAL A PROCESS?
HOW LONG DOES IT TYPICALLY TAKE
IN THE SEATTLE?
>> OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS IT
WAS 100 DAYS.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PARTIES
THERE ARE, AND THE NUMBER OF
ISSUES THAT ARE BEING RAISED.
THE SHORTEST WAS ONE PERSON WHO
RAISED ONE ISSUE.
>> I WILL JUST SAY IN RECENT
EXPERIENCE THERE HAS BEEN A
COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE THE
APPEAL PROCESS WAS EXTENDED.
SOMETIMES MULTIPLE TIMES
BECAUSE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING
A PARTY WERE ON VACATION. OR
SOMEONE WAS SWITCHING ATTORNEYS
AND NEEDED TO START THE CLOCK
OVER.
I 100% FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS.
THE INTENT BEHIND THE CITY LAWS
ARE GREAT.
WHEN ATTORNEYS VACATION
SCHEDULES PRECLUDE US FROM
MAKING POLICY DECISIONS IT
DOESN'T FEEL FAIR.
AN ATTORNEY CAN CHANGE THEIR
VACATION PLANS OR CLIENT CAN
PICK A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY.
BUT WE SHOULDN'T PUT THE WHOLE
CITY ON HOLD FOR THOSE ACTIONS.
>> THANK YOU I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THAT UP.
I THINK AS CHAIRMAN PACHECO HAS
TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.
WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT ALL OF
OUR POLICIES. I BROUGHT THAT UP
WHEN THE HEARING EXAMINER WAS
APPOINTED.
IT DOES FEEL LIKE WE ARE DOING
A DISSERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY
AT LARGE WHEN WE ALLOW THOSE
THAT HAVE THE ACCESS FOR DEEP
FUNDING POCKETS TO TAKE A
DECISION TO GO ON LEAVE, AND
LEAVE THE COUNTRY COMPLETELY.
AND WE ACCOMMODATE THAT
SCHEDULE AT THE RISK OF HOW MUCH
HOUSING AND TIME LOST?
TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT COULD BE
AN IMPEDIMENT TO OUR DESIRE TO
MOVE FORWARD.
IF THERE IS EQUITY EMBEDDED IN
THAT PRIVILEGE THAT IS
ASSOCIATED WITH BEING ABLE TO
PICK UP AND LEAVE AND GO ACROSS
THE POND FOR VACATION.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT POINT
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
THAT IS BEEN A FRUSTRATION OF
MINE . AND ORGANIZING HOW THIS
PROCESS WORKS.
AGAIN AS I MENTIONED BEFORE I
FEEL THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
THERE ARE APPEAL PROCESSES TO
CERTAIN TYPES OF DECISIONS.
AND WE WILL MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHICH POLICIES ARE
ELIGIBLE.
IT'S ALSO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
THAT THAT APPEAL PROCESS IS
EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EQUALITY
AND EQUITY.
TECHNICALLY THIS IS EQUALLY
AVAILABLE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER RACE, COLOR,
OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
YOU CAN MAKE AN APPEAL.
THE REALITY IS THAT INDIVIDUALS
AND BUSINESSES THAT HAVE MORE
RESOURCES ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY
TO MAKE THESE APPEALS.
WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER WE
SEE THAT THERE ARE NO LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES MAKING THESE
APPEALS.
THE WAY THIS PLAYS OUT IN
REALITY IS VERY INEQUITABLE.
ON TOP OF THAT THERE HAS BEEN A
RECENT TREND.
I HOPE WE KNOW THAT IN THE BUD
IMMEDIATELY.
ONCE PEOPLE GET INTO AN APPEAL
PROCESS THEN THEY ASKED FOR
SPECIAL TREATMENT.
THEY SAY I KNOW THERE IS A
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BUT WE
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PRIVATE
NEGOTIATION.
IN THE AIRBNB LEGISLATION
COUNCILMEMBER BURGESS AGREED TO
THAT PROCESS.
AND MADE A PERSONAL COMMITMENT.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS FAIR.
I WAS ASKED TO DO THAT AS PART
OF THE BACKYARD COTTAGE
LEGISLATION AND I WAS INSISTENT
THAT JUST BECAUSE A QUEEN ANNE
HAS A RESOURCE TO APPEAL THAT
THEY CAN GO INTO PRIVATE
NEGOTIATIONS TO COME TO A
SETTLEMENT.
WE WILL HAVE A LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS WHERE EVERYONE CAN COME
AND PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT.
I'M NOT GOING GIVE ONE GROUP
SPECIAL TREATMENT UNTIL THAT IS
DONE.
IT'S NOT FAIR.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE
GROUPS ARE TRYING TO BE TREATED
UNFAIRLY.
THEY'RE JUST USING EVERY
VEHICLE THEY HAND TO GET THEIR
AGENDA.
IT'S NOT FAIR.
AND IT'S A LITTLE MORE ABOUT
HOW WE AS A COUNCIL REACT WHEN
THIS HAPPENS.
I THINK LIMITING THE TIMELINE
IS A WAY TO LEVEL THE PLAYING
FIELD AND THERE MAY BE THINGS
THAT WE NEED TO DO TO HELP
GROUPS WHO NEVER SHOW UP AT
THESE OR HAVE THE RESOURCES TO
MAKE APPEALS.
THIS JACINTA ABOUT THE SCENE NO
MORE APPEALS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LOW INCOME
GROUP HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY
WE WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL AND
HAVE ASSISTANCE.
>> I CONCUR MY THOUGHT PROCESS
IS REGARD TO APPEALS IT'S
OBJECTIVELY WHO USES THE TOOL?
AND PROVIDING CLARITY BEHIND
THAT PROCESS SO THAT IT ISN'T
USED FOR VACATIONS.
THAT WAS A MISUSE OF THE PROCESS
I APPRECIATE PROVIDING CLARITY
ON THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THIS COULD ADD HARDSHIP TO
THE HEARING EXAMINER IN MEETING
DEADLINES.
THE LEGISLATION ALLOWS THE
HEARING EXAMINER TO HIRE
HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM TO
MEET STATUTORY DEADLINES AS THE
BUDGET PROCESS OCCURS.
AND YOU SHOULD CONSIDER
PROVIDING FUNDING TO ALLOW THEM
TO HIRE THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
OTHER CHANGES IN REGULATIONS.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION TO DRAFT DIRECTORS
RULES.
WHERE THERE ARE COMPLICATED OR
WHERE THERE SHOULD BE A
CONSISTENT APPROACH TO DOING AN
ANALYSIS OF OF PARTICULAR
ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
THEN HE GOES OUT FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
TO GUIDE AND PROVIDE
PREDICTABILITY AND COMPARE
BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.
IT CLARIFIES THE ANALYSIS OF
SUBJECTS THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED
SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
LIKE ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE NOT IN
ENVELOPMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
UNDER STATE LAW.
THEY HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
APPEAL IN THE PAST CONTRARY TO
THE CITY AND TENT.
THERE IS A SECTION IN THE SEPA
REGULATION THAT CONTRADICTS
THE LAND USE CODE ABOUT WHEN A
PERMIT COULD BE ISSUED.
THIS LEGISLATION DELETES THAT
SEPA LANGUAGE AND RELIES ON THE
LAND USE LANGUAGE WHICH IS MUCH
CLEARER AND PROVIDES A BETTER
DIRECTION.
THAT IS IT SPOT ON THOSE
PIECES, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF ALL
OF THOSE.
I WISH I HAD YOUR LIST IN FRONT
OF ME.
GETTING RID OF THE AMBIGUITY
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. WHAT WERE
THE OTHER POINTS THAT YOU MADE.
>> THE DIRECTORS RULE WOULD BE
GREAT.
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GIVE
CLARITY.
I THINK WE WOULD ALL BENEFIT
FROM THIS.
THE COUNCIL WOULD BENEFIT.
COMMUNITY WOULD BENEFIT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PROCESSES
POTENTIALLY WHETHER THIS IS A
TOOL THAT IS USED EQUITABLY.
PROVIDING CLARITY TO GROUPS
THAT ARE OVERWHELMED BY A LEGAL
PROCESS.
IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE WAS
A SIMPLE CHECKLIST.
THAT WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY
SOMEONE WOULD KNOW HOW TO DO
IT.
AND I THINK THAT CLARITY IS A
GREAT STEP.
AND THE OTHER ONE?
FOR CLARIFYING THE ELEMENT.
>> IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THAT WHY WE HAVE SEPA LAWS AND
THAT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT AS A
POLICY MAKER THAT I HAVE AN
INFORMED DECISION TO MAKE.
THAT'S NOT THIS EARLY TO TELL
ME WHAT TO DO.
ALTHOUGH SOMEONE IT'S BEEN ON
THE OTHER SIDE I WISH THAT THE
PERSON WOULD FOLLOW EXACTLY
WHAT WAS BEST.
I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THE
CITY SAYS YOU WHILE YOU'RE
DOING THE ANALYSIS DO SOME
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.
AS YOU MENTIONED IT WAS NEVER
THE INTENT THAT IF THE ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS ISN'T AGREED TO THAT
THEY CAN APPEAL THE ANALYSIS.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE
VOLUNTARILY ADDED ON TOP A
STATE LAW FOR MORE INFORMATION
. I AM CLARIFYING THAT THOSE
CONDITIONS ARE NOT THE SUBJECT
TO APPEAL.
THERE'S JUST THINGS THAT WE HAVE
ASKED FOR INFORMATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN CAN
YOU GIVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF
WHEN THAT HAS BEEN USED?
>> THE TRAIL HAS BEEN APPEALED
THROUGH SEPA.
ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WERE
MET, THE KING COUNTY SAID.
RECORD SAID YOU HAVE TO GO BACK
AND DO MORE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.
BY CLARIFYING SAYING THAT YOU
DIDN'T FOLLOW YOUR OWN LAW.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAW WAS
CLEAR FOR WHATEVER REASON IT
WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH AND A SPEAR
COURT JUDGE DISAGREE.
WE CAN CLARIFY THAT SO THAT
MISTAKE WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
>> YOU AND I HAVE HAD THAT
CONVERSATION BEFORE.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE PUBLIC KNEW THAT.
>> IF I COULD JUST MAKE A BROAD
STATEMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT
WE HEARD TODAY.
AND I RECEIVED SOME EMAILS FROM
THE FOLKS THAT WERE HERE TODAY.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAWS
LIKE SEPA . AND IT'S IMPORTANT
WHEN THEY'RE NOT WORKING TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF WHAT THEY ARE
ATTENDED TO DO THAT WE ADJUST
THEM.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED ON
BOARDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
I'M VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT
CHANGING THOSE FOR FEAR THAT
THEY MAY DO MORE DAMAGE THAN
GOOD.
WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT IS PLAYING
OUT IN SEATTLE. THREE RECENT
EXAMPLES.
ONE THAT WE ARE STILL IN THE
MIDDLE OF.
THE TRAIL THAT HAS BEEN
APPEALED MULTIPLE TIMES BY A
SMALL HANDFUL OF BUSINESSES THAT
PREVENTED A BIKE LANE FROM
BEING BILLED FOR DECADES.
AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY.
A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP APPEAL THAT
IT JUST REQUIRES THAT SOMEBODY
SHOWS UP.
I CURRENTLY AM UNABLE TO MOVE
FORWARD ON TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES BECAUSE DEVELOPERS
HAVE CHALLENGED THE ADEQUACY OF
US INCLUDING A TRANSPORTATION
PLAN.
WE HAVE BEEN DELAYED OVER A
YEAR IN IMPLEMENTING IMPACT
FEES.
BECAUSE DEVELOPERS HAVE
CHALLENGE.
WE HAVE HOMEOWNERS AND
BUSINESSES.
I HAVE NOT SEEN IN 10 YEARS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP CHALLENGED
SEPA ANALYSIS.
AND I THINK THAT IS WHY WE HAVE
ORGANIZATIONS HERE TODAY SAYING
THAT WE ARE READY FOR THIS
CHANGE.
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN USED TO
UNDERMINE POLICIES.
WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT WHO SPEAKS
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY
AND WHETHER THESE POLICIES ARE
GOOD.
THEY SHOULD STILL BE PROCESSES
IN PLACE FOR THIS.
BUT ON CERTAIN THINGS WERE WE
SAY WE WANT TO GO IN THIS
DIRECTION WE SAY LET'S HAVE AN
APPEAL PROCESS AND FIGURE OUT
HOW TO RESOLVE THAT IN A FEW
MONTHS NOT A YEAR.
I KNOW I HAVE A LOT MORE
CONVERSATION AND I WILL HOLD
OFF ON MY PONTIFICATION.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOMETHING
RESOLVED IT LOOKS SIMILAR TO
THIS IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.
>> YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME
PAGE.
AND I WILL TRY TO BE AS
RESERVED AS I CAN.
AS QUOTED EARLIER IN TERMS OF
THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA MADE A
COMMENT ABOUT OUR LIVED
EXPERIENCE SHAPED THE
FRAMEWORK.
THE LUXURY OF LIVING CLOSE TO
WHERE I WORK.
MOVING WITHOUT A CAR.
HOW DO WE CREATE THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE PEOPLE.
AND WHEN I SEE A PIECE OF THAT
PROCESS THAT IS NOT BEING USED
IN ITS INTENDED FORM.
TO THE REFERENCE EXAMPLES THAT
YOU HAVE SAID I THINK IT'S AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SAY HOW
DO WE REFORMAT?
SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE
INFILL AND THE DENSITY THAT WE
NEED AROUND TRANSIT.
WITH THAT I KNOW WE WILL HAVE
MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS IF
THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS TO
THE NEXT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 4.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> I JUST WANT TO THANK BOTH
OF YOU FOR THE YOUR LEADERSHIP
MOVING FORWARD AND MOVING
FORWARD THE HOUSE BILL 1923.
THIS WAS A NOT A BATTLE THAT
WAS WON EASY.
AND I KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE IN
THE AUDIENCE TODAY PARTICIPATED
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND
ALLIES WITH THE CITY TO ADVANCE
WHAT THE COMMUNITY SAW AS YOU
BOTH ARTICULATED AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE THE WAY
THIS TOOL IS BEING USED TO
APPLY IT TO OUR PROTECTION OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
ONE OF THE BEST THINGS WE CAN
DO IS STOP BEING A MEGA
COMMUTER CITY.
WE ARE ONE OF THE LARGEST
COMMUTER CITIES IN THE COUNTRY.
PEOPLED TRAVELING MULTIPLE
HOURS A DAY. I'M VERY EXCITED
ABOUT THE WAY THE LEGISLATION
MARYS ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
AND IN COMBINATION WITH GOOD
GOVERNANCE AND CITY PLANNING
STRATEGY.
I WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS THAT
WE WORKED WITH DURING THE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
ESPECIALLY THE SIERRA CLUB AND
FUTURE WISE, AND A SIGHT LINE.
ALSO A HUGE AMOUNT OF
APPRECIATION FOR THE LABOR
COUNCIL WHO WORKED ON THIS.
AND THEN LASTLY WANT TO THANK
AWCTHE. THERE WAS A COUPLE OF
SCUFFLES BACK AND FORTH.
AND THE TEAM DID HELP COME UP
WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS
US TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING
FORWARD.
I LOOKING AT LISH , IT'S NOT
EASY DURING A MOVING TARGET.
AND THAT CAN CHANGE YOUR
POSITION WILDLY.
IN JUST MINUTES.
WITH US RECOGNIZING THE STRONG
DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD.
I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY AND I WANT
TO THANK THOSE LEADERS AND THE
LEGISLATORS AND LOBBY TEAM FOR
HELPING US TO GET TO A PRODUCT
THAT WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE WITH GREAT URGENCY.
THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO
PUSH THIS FORWARD.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY.
WILL HAVE THE NEXT DISCUSSION
ON SEPTEMBER 4 THE FINAL ITEM
IS A DISCUSSION ON THE
NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL REPORT.
GOOD MORNING.
WILL EVERYONE AT THE TABLE
INTRODUCE THEMSELVES?
>> GOOD MORNING I AM A VANESSA
MURDOCK.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
SEATTLE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> MORNING MY NAME IS MICHAEL
AUSTIN, AND I AM THE CHAIR OF
THE SEATTLE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
MY NAME ISAND I'M A MEMBER THE
SEATTLE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> I THINK WE ARE READY TO GO.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
REPORT. I'M NOT SURE IF
EVERYONE AT THE TABLE HAS HAD A
CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.
I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IT BECAUSE
THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD THINGS
THAT WERE STATED IN THE REPORT.
AND BEING ABLE TO AMPLIFY THE
DIRECTION THAT THE CITY SHOULD
BE GOING. AND WHAT WE CAN DO
MOVING FORWARD IN THIS COMMUNITY
TO KEEP HER GOING.
>> THANK YOU CHAIRING COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO BRIEF YOU ON THE
RECENT REPORT OF NEIGHBORHOODS
FOR ALL.
WE WILL START WITH A LITTLE
CONTEXT OF WHAT URGED US TO
WRITE THE REPORT.
AND MICHAEL AND RICK WILL
PROVIDE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE
OPERATIONS AS WELL.
SOME SUGGESTED STRATEGIES.
AND WE WANT TO LEAVE TIME FOR
QUESTIONS.
>> WE WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE IN THIS REPORT WHO
WE ARE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE ARE IN THE PRIVILEGED
POSITION OF EXISTING TO SERVE
YOU, THE MAYOR, AND THE
DEPARTMENTS AT THE CITY.
WE ARE COMPRISED OF 16
INDIVIDUALS THAT REPRESENT
DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY.
AND WE SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT
ADVISORY DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE MADE UP OF RENTERS AND
OWNERS AS WELL.
ONE THING THAT WE STORED IN
THIS PROCESS IS THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PREVIOUS ONE AND AS WE WORK
INTO THE NEXT PLAN UPDATE WE
TRY TO KEEP IN MIND THE WORK
THAT WE DO MAKING SURE TO
REVOLVE AROUND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
WITH IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE
NOTICED THAT WAS INTERESTING.
THE NEXT SLIDE IDENTIFIES
SOMETHING THAT STOOD OUT TO US
AS WE WERE LOOKING AT OUR
HOUSING POLICIES.
I KNOW THE INFORMATION IS NOT
SHOCKING TO MANY.
AND I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE
HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
KNOWING MANY OF YOU THAT HAVE
LOOKED AT THE REPORT BEFORE.
AND WE APPRECIATE THE TIME TO
COME AND SPEAK TO YOU AGAIN.
THIS STOOD OUT TO US THAT THE
SEATTLE OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS
BETWEEN 2010 AND I'M GETTING A
DATE RUN WRONG.
THE NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED
HAS NOT BEEN UP TO SPEED AT THE
SAME TIME.
THIS HAS INTERESTING IMPACTS TO
THE CITY.
NOT JUST IMPACTS TODAY BUT
LOOKING AT THE PAST HISTORY OF
REDLINING MICKEY.
THIS IS ONE ASPECT OF THE
HISTORY OF DISPARITY THAT HAS
BEEN PLACED ON THE CITY.
THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
WE ALSO HAVE OTHER ASPECTS LIKE
RACIAL COVENANTS AND OTHER
PRACTICES THAT HAVE NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED OUR COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR.
THIS MEANS THAT IT HAS TRICKLED
INTO THE FUTURE GENERATION'S
ABILITY TO GAIN WEALTH.
COMMITTEES OF COLOR HAVE NOT
HAD THE SAME ADVANTAGES AND
PRIVILEGES.
THE COMMITTEES THAT ARE
IDENTIFIED BY THE COLOR BLUE.
AND IDENTIFYING ALL THE AREAS
THAT ARE SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE.
MANY OF THOSE AREAS WERE
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED IN BLUE.
WALL MANY OF THE OTHER AREAS
WERE DECLARED HAZARDOUS OR
DECLINE.
AND TAKING ON MUCH OF THE
BURDEN OF THE GROWTH IN THE
COMMUNITY.
WE WANTED TO PUT TOGETHER A
SERIES OF OBSERVATIONS TO
HIGHLIGHT WHAT WE FOUND THAT
STUDY HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER THE
LAST 2.5 YEARS.
MUCH OF THAT INFORMATION IS
FROM 2017 AND 2018.
WE FEEL THAT IS VERY RELEVANT
STILL TODAY.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS LOOKING
BACK AT THE MAP ITSELF AND ONE
THING THAT STOOD OUT IS
ACCORDING TO CALCULATIONS AND
WHAT WE DID IN THIS
CALCULATION, BECAUSE MANY
COMMUNITIES AND PEOPLE
CALCULATE ZONES IT DIFFERENTLY.
FOR US IT WAS TAKING A LOOK AT
THAT LAND THAT IS IDENTIFIED
FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
WHEN YOU FACTOR IN ALL THOSE
USES AND FOCUS ON RESIDENTIAL
75% OF RESIDENTIAL LAND IS
IDENTIFIED FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE
. LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ALONG THE
WAY. ABOUT 5% OF THE GROWTH
WITHIN THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE
AREA THAT WE LOOKED AT TOOK
PLACE IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES.
THE MAJORITY OF GROWTH HAS BEEN
IN MULTI FAMILY ZONES.
SEC A QUESTION ON THAT LAST
SLIDE?
THANK YOU FOR THE BREAKDOWN ON
THE AMOUNT OF LAND IN GOEDDEL
THAT IS OWNED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
USE.
ACCORDING TO THE MAP WHEN YOU
LOOK JUST AT RESIDENTIAL LAND.
75% OF RESIDENTIAL LAND IS ZONED
IS THAT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE
MORE RECENT CITYWIDE AT THE
ZONE THAT WE DID?
BUT THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THE STUDY WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE
PASSAGE.
SO THE 6% THAT WAS COVERED ARE
NOT REFLECTED IN THIS REPORT
WHICH WAS RELEASED IN DECEMBER
OF LAST YEAR.
>> WE HELD THAT UP MANY TIMES
IN FULL COUNSEL TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF WHY WE WERE
MOVING FORWARD IN THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD OVER
THE LAST YEAR ABOUT THE NEED
FOR RACIAL EQUITY TO BE APPLIED
TO CURRENT POLICIES.
I PUT IT CITYWIDE".
I THINK WE KNOW THAT WALL IT
SPANNED THE CITY IT WASN'T
TRULY A CITYWIDE UP ZONE.
IT WAS JUST 6% OF THE LAND.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAKE
SURE THAT NOBODY GETS
MISINFORMATION TO REBUTTAL THAT
NEVER.
AND I THINK WE WILL BE CLOSE TO
THREE QUARTERS IN TERMS OF HOW
MUCH LAND IS ZONED FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY USE.
I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS
ANOTHER CALCULUS THAT FOLKS
HAVE DONE WHEN THEY TAKE OUT
LAND THAT HAS PARKS, ROADS, AND
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.
THE NUMBER CONTINUES TO SHOW
THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAND
ACROSS THE CITY THAT IS ZONED
BEEN ABLE TO CALCULATE IN THE
6% NUMBER WOULD HELP US
ARTICULATE THE IMMENSE AMOUNT
OF LAND THAT IS ZONED FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY US.
AND SINCE THE CHAIR IS NIGH
HERE.
BUT I WASN'T GOING TO STOP YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU
FOR PRODUCING THIS REPORT.
WE HAVE BROUGHT IT UP MANY
TIMES.
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR
FRIENDS AND COUNTERPARTS IN
MINNEAPOLIS.
WHEN WE ASKED WHAT LED THEM TO
A RESIDENTIAL ZONE CHANGE
THROUGHOUT THE CITY THEY SAID
IT WAS THE BACKBONE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE
CURRENT POLICIES WERE EXTENDING
INTO HOUSING SEGREGATION THE
LENDING POLICIES HADN'T
EQUITABLY ALLOWED FOR PEOPLE TO
LIVE ACROSS THE CITY.
THIS TYPE OF ANALYSIS HAS LED
TO OTHER CITIES MOVING FORWARD
IN WAYS THAT ARE COURAGEOUS AND
COMPLETELY OVERDUE IN OUR NEED
TO ACCESS POLICYMAKERS.
AND I'M EXCITED THAT YOU'VE
TAKEN THIS REPORT ON AND HAVE
MOVED FORWARD WITH PUBLISHING
IT.
I THINK WE ALL KNOW MANY OF
THESE ELEMENTS.
TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO
HOLD UP THE EVIDENCE.
I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOUR
ACTING WITH CONVICTION AND
URGENCY.
AND I'M EXCITED THAT THIS IS A
GREAT WAY TO DOVETAIL THE BILL
THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED.
THIS IS THE Y THAT WE NEED TO
ACT WITH URGENCY ON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANOTHER OBSERVATION THAT THE
HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS NEED
PRACTICE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF
THE IDEA THAT WE TALK ABOUT.
THE MISSING THE MIDDLE.
WHAT IS A MISSING MIDDLE?
WE IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT A
NUMBER OF UNITS WILL BE SINGLE-
FAMILY THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED OR
20+ UNITS IN ONE BUILDING.
AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE MISSING
OR HAVE A LAG IN THE PRODUCTION
OF UNITS THAT ARE MORE MULTI
FAMILY UNITS.
>> THAT IS A TOTAL HOUSING
UNITS ACROSS THE CITY?
>> CORRECT.
>> SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE
IDENTIFIED IS LINKING IT BACK
TO PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INDIVIDUALS IN THE SEATTLE.
WHETHER YOU'RE A NEW RESIDENT
OR AN OLD RESIDENT OR A
MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILY THAT
LIVES HERE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY THAT
THERE NEEDS TO BE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE FOR
ALL THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WANT TO
STAY IN SEATTLE.
BECAUSE WE HAVE A HUGE
DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TYPES OF
HOUSING . REALLY LIMITS THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING THAT WE
CAN USE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE
THAT WANT TO AGE IN PLACE IN
THEIR COMMUNITY.
ONE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO US
THAT WE THOUGHT WAS
FASCINATING.
MANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
WE SPEAK TO OR THAT WE FEEL
NOSTALGIC ABOUT IN TERMS OF
CHARACTER.
THAT'S A LOADED TERM.
THE WAY THAT WE APPRECIATE
COMMITTEES.
THIS EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM CAPITOL
HILL.
WE ALSO SPOKE TO FREMONT AND
WALLINGFORD.
THEY EXPERIENCE DOWN ZONING.
THESE WERE DUPLEXES THAT WERE
CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THEY WERE
DOWN ZONED.
>> THOSE ARE NONCONFORMING
USES.
THIS LOOKS LIKE A CAPITOL HILL
HOME.
AND JUST HAPPENS TO BE TWO
FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN IT.
BUT IT DOESN'T ATTRACT FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> WE WOULD ARGUE THAT IT
CONTRIBUTES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
LINKING BACK TO WHY WE TALK
ABOUT RACIAL EQUITY.
THIS EXEMPLIFIES ONE OTHER
INDICATOR THAT IDENTIFIES THE
PREVIOUS HISTORY THAT HAS
TRICKLED INTO THE LACK OF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AS OPPOSED
TO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE WHITE.
IN SEATTLE IT IS HOMEOWNERSHIP
BY RACE.
AND INDICATES THAT 50% OF
HOMEOWNERS ARE WHITE.
AND IT TRICKLES DOWN FOR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
WHEN IT COMES TO DISTRIBUTION
OF HOME OWNERSHIP WE HAVE A
DIFFERENT INDICATOR THAT
IDENTIFIES THAT THAT RATE IS A
MUCH HIGHER.
>> DO YOU HAVE FURTHER
INFORMATION ON THE AGE OF
BREAKDOWN?
LIKE MILLENNIAL'S?
BUT THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WE DO NOT HAVE THAT IN THE
REPORT.
AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FACT
THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE FASTEST
GROWING CITIES.
IN THE SAME TIME SOME OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS ARE EXPERIENCING
A DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN THAT
AREA.
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THIS
DECREASE.
THE OTHER AREAS HIGHLIGHTED IN
VARIOUS SHADES OF RED OR PINK
ARE AREAS THAT WE CONSIDER.
THIS EXEMPLIFIES AN EXAMPLE OF
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHY WE SEE THIS IN A
HOLISTIC MANNER.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IF WE ARE
NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES TO
ENSURE THAT RESIDENTS CAN
REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE
DO PUSH THEM OUT.
IT DOES INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
VEHICLES ON THE ROAD THAT IS A
HUGE CONTRIBUTOR THIS IS JUST
ONE INDICATOR THAT IS PULLED
FROM THE SUSTAINABILITY OFFICE.
YOU CAN ALSO FIND SIMILAR
INDICATORS FROM THE VISION PLAN
THAT HAS VERY SIMILAR
INFORMATION THIS IS NEW
INFORMATION BUT SOMETHING THAT
WE FELT WAS IRRELEVANT TO SHARE.
>> MICHAEL REVIEWED THE
OBSERVATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN
THE REPORT.
I WAS GOING TO QUICKLY GO OVER
SOME OF THE BROAD STRATEGIES
THAT WE ARE PROPOSING OR
SUGGESTING RELATED TO EXPANDING
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE
CITY.
THESE ARE NOT LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS.
JUST BROAD IDEAS.
THE FIRST OF THOSE IS TO EXPAND
URBAN VILLAGE BOUNDARIES FOR A
15 MINUTE WALK SHED AROUND
TRANSIT.
THE STRATEGY IS BASED ON SOUND
TRANSIT PLANNING THESE A VILLAGE
BOUNDARIES SHOULD REFLECT A 50
MINUTE WALK SHED AROUND FREQUENT
TRANSIT.
BUT IT REFLECTS WHAT WAS
NEGOTIATED WITH ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNERS A QUARTER OF A
CENTURY AGO.
AND WE THINK IT'S TIME TO
REVISIT AND REVISE SOME OF
THESE BOUNDARIES.
THE SECOND STRATEGY IS TO
DESIGNATE NEW URBAN VILLAGES.
AND THE CRITERIA AROUND EXISTING
SERVICES.
THIS IS A MADISON PARK WHICH
HAS A VIBRANT COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT.
WATERFRONT PARK AND IS SLATED
FOR RAPID TRANSIT.
I'S A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS THAT
WE COULD CONSIDER ESTABLISHING
URBAN VILLAGES.
>> YOU HAVE SOME FANS IN THE
AUDIENCE.
WE ARE ALL OR SUGGESTING THE
CREATION OF A NEW CLASS OF
SMALL SCALE URBAN VILLAGES.
OR WHAT WE CALL URBAN HAMLETS
AROUND EXISTING COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS, PARKS, AND THE
SCHOOLS. I HAPPEN TO LIVE IN
DISTRICT 6. BETWEEN
WALLINGFORD AND GREEN LAKE AND
A SMALL COMMERCIAL AREA WHICH
HAS COME TO BE CALLED PANTANO.
AND IT COULD SUPPORT SMALL-
SCALE BUSINESS.
>> IF YOU EVER DECIDE TO LEAVE
MIKE'S DISTRICT.
AND COME TO DISTRICT FOR MAC.
I LOVE THAT CONCEPT I LIVE IN
UPPER FREMONT.
AND THERE IS A COMMERCIAL NOTE
THAT IS PERFECT FOR HAMLET.
SECOND AND YET WE ARE NOT THE
SAME AS MAJOR FREMONT.
ANOTHER CLASSIFICATION.
>> WE SUGGEST CREATING A NEW
ZONING DESTINATION THAT
PROMOTES THE END TENDED
PHYSICAL FORM BY RENAMING THE
ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL.
ANOTHER CATEGORY OF
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL WOULD
ALLOW FOR HOUSING TYPES TO BE
TAILORED IN CONTRAST TO THE
EXISTING ONE SIZE FITS ALL
FAMILY ZONING THAT WE HAVE
TODAY.
UNLIKE THE SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING.
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL WOULD
SPEAK TO THE FORM AND SCALE OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE
BUILDINGS WITHIN IT.
AND NOT BE SUGGESTIVE OF WHO
SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT LIVE IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGNATION
HAS BEEN A MISNOMER.
SINCE THE MID-1990S WHEN WE
PASSED LEGISLATION ALLOWING TWO
HOUSEHOLDS TO LIVE ON A PARCEL.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT POINT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON
THAT I'M SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE
OF THE LEGISLATION THAT WE JUST
PASSED INCLUDED THE ALTERNATIVE
NAME FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
WE ARE TAKING YOUR ADVICE
BEFORE YOU EVEN GET IT.
WE APPRECIATE THAT
>> BEING THE CHAIR OF THE LAND-
USE YOU HAVE A REGULAR
MEETINGS.
AND I TRY TO TAKE ADVICE WHERE
YOU CAN GET IT.
>> THE NEXT STRATEGY I'M UP TO
SPEED AS TO FOSTER A BROADER
RANGE OF HOUSING WITH ACCESS TO
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS BY
ALLOWING A GREATER DIVERSITY OF
HOUSING TYPES PARKS, SCHOOLS
AND OTHER SERVICES.
IN ADDITION TO THIS WE COULD
DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS TO
ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS
COMPATIBLE AND WITHIN SCALE OF
THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE SHOULD REVISE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS TO PRIORITIZE
PEOPLE OVER CARS.
THIS WILL ALLOW HOUSING TYPES
IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD BY
ALLOWING EXISTING DETACHED
HOUSES TO BE DIVIDED INTO
MULTIPLE UNITS TO ALLOW
ADDITIONAL UNITS ON CORNER
LOTS, AND ALONG ZONE EDGES.
INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT LOT SIZE
AND WIDTH.
WE CAN LOOK AT LOT OF TYPE
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE GREATER
FLEXIBILITY.
WE COULD INCENTIVIZE THE
RETENTION OF EXISTING HOUSES BY
ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY WHEN MORE
UNITS ARE ADDED.
THE CITY COULD PROVIDE
TECHNICAL AND DESIGN RESOURCES
FOR HOMEOWNERS TO REDEVELOP
HOMEOWNERSHIP OF THEIR PROPERTY
AS OPPOSED TO SELLING IT TO
DEVELOPER THE FIFTH STRATEGY
ENCOURAGES COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
ON ALL LOTS BY REDUCING OR
REMOVING MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS.
INCENTIVES FOR MULTIPLE UNITS
ON LARGER LOTS AND LIMITING THE
SIZE OF NEW HOUSES.
WE JUST PASSED ACCESSORY
DWELLING LEGISLATION THAT DOES
THOSE LAST TWO THINGS.
WE THINK WE COULD GO FURTHER BY
PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
MORE HOME OWNERSHIP IN SINGLE-
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ALLOWING
MORE HOUSEHOLDS ACCESS TO THE
WEALTH BUILDING POTENTIAL THAT
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROVIDES THE
FINAL STRATEGY ENSURES THAT NEW
HOUSING IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD
SUPPORTS A GREATER HOUSEHOLD
DIVERSELY.
WE HAVE AN EVER-GROWING NUMBER
OF SENIORS THAT WANT TO AGE IN
PLACE.
WE HAVE MULTIGENERATIONAL
FAMILIES GROUP GROUPS OF
UNRELATED ADULTS THAT WOULD
LIKE TO LIVE TOGETHER BUT WE
SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE ALL
OF THESE HOUSEHOLDS.
WE ALSO SUGGEST A FORMAL
DEFINITION OF FAMILY SIZED
HOUSING AND THE ADOPTION OF
FAMILY-FRIENDLY DESIGN
GUIDELINES THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE
THINGS LIKE COURTYARD
APARTMENTS THAT YOU SEE HERE
THAT PROVIDE INCREASED DENSITY
AND SHARED OPEN SPACE WHERE
FAMILIES CAN THRIVE.
THAT'S JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF
SOME OF THE SUGGESTED
STRATEGIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE
REPORT.
>> ON THE COURTYARD APARTMENTS.
THERE ARE A FEW OF THOSE IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEY ARE GREAT.
AESTHETICALLY THEY ARE SMALL
SCALE THE FOLKS THAT I KNOW
THAT LIVE IN THEM LOVE WHAT
THEY PROVIDE THEY ARE TYPICALLY
ONE FLOOR LIVING AND CURRENTLY
I'M LOOKING FOR A PLACE FOR MY
MOM TO LIVE WITHOUT THE STAIRS
AND THAT IS HARD TO DO.
SHE CAN USE STAIRS RIGHT NOW SO
THAT IS WHAT SHE IS ATTRACTED
TO BUT SHE KNOWS THAT THAT MAY
NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE.
WE DON'T SEE THOSE PICK IS THE
CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW THE PLACE
WHERE YOU BUILD A COURTYARD
BUILDING IS THE SAME PIECE OF
LAND WHERE YOU CAN BUILD A FIVE
STORY PARKING LOT ON.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE A SENSE
TO BUILD FIVE UNITS.
WE COULD BUILD SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES AND THEN WE WILL SEE MORE
OPTIONS?
>> WE NEED TO ALLOW IT IN MORE
PLACES AND WE WOULD NEED TO
INCENTIVIZE IT THROUGH THE
LEGISLATION PUT IN PLACE.
THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF
THE EFFORT TO START A
CONVERSATION SO WE CAN TALK
ABOUT HOW WE DO THIS AND WHAT
WOULD WE DO AND WHAT MIGHT THE
LEGISLATION LOOK LIKE IT WOULD
INCENTIVIZE THOSE PATTERNS OF
DEVELOPMENT?
>> YOU TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE
DUPLEXES HOW COMPLEX AND WHAT
IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE GET IT
RIGHT WITH THE DESIGN AND
STANDARDS THE COURTYARD
APARTMENTS THAT I SEE ARE 60 OR
70 YEARS OLD.
THE PROBABLY DIFFERENT BUILDING
MATERIALS ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK
EXACTLY LIKE THAT.
PEOPLE WILL BE WORRIED THAT
THEY'RE GOING BE BIG UGLY
THINGS DO YOU THINK WE HAVE A
HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT A
PROCESS WITH COMMUNITY INPUT
COULD PUT SOME STANDARDS IN
PLACE THAT WOULD PUT SOMETHING
IN PLACE THAT WE HOPE TO GET.
>> YES.
IT WILL BE A VERY INTERESTING
CONVERSATION. BECAUSE ONE
COULD DO FORM BASE CODES THAT
WERE VERY DESCRIPTIVE.
I THINK WHAT WE WOULD BE
SPEAKING OF.
AND ENDORSING WOULD BE A
BALANCE.
A BALANCE THAT IS RESPECTFUL OF
THE EXISTING CONTEXT BUT ALSO
PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR US TO
LOOK FORWARD AND ADDRESS
CURRENT AND FUTURE HOUSING
NEEDS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE TO
CONTINUALLY REMIND MYSELF IS
THAT THE BUILDING TYPES THAT WE
HOLD TODAY ARE THE ICONS OF THE
CHARACTERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WERE PROBABLY
CONTROVERSIAL AT THE MOMENT
THAT THEY WERE BEING A BELT.
BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKING OVER
FARMLAND.
SO IT HAS EVOLVED.
>> SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS
WERE VERY CONTROVERSIAL WHEN
THEY WERE BELT.
WE HEARD A LOT OF THE SAME
CRITICISM THAT WE HEAR TODAY.
THAT EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME
THAT THEY ARE CHEAPLY BUILT
THAT THEY TAKE UP TOO MUCH
LAND.
THAT'S NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE
BUILDINGS THAT WE BUILD TODAY
WILL HOLD UP TO 100 YEARS FROM
TODAY IS FIND EXAMPLES OF
ARCHITECTURE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE
CHANGE IS DIFFICULT.
AND A LOT OF THIS IS JUST THE
SHOCK OF THE NEW . WE WILL GET
USED TO IT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
INTO YOUR POINT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AM
MINDFUL OF IS THAT THROUGH THIS
APPOINTMENT THAT WE GOT THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE PUGET SOUND
REGIONAL COUNCIL.
AND AS THE REGION GROWS AND WE
ANTICIPATE 1.8 MILLION NEW
RESIDENTS.
WHERE IS EVERYONE GOING TO LIVE
? DO WE WANT FOLKS TO BE LIVING
IN THE SUBURBS? OR DO WE WANT A
FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY BEING
WALKABLE AND LIVABLE.
I THINK YOUR REPORT DRAWS A
PRETTY GOOD BLUEPRINT ON HOW TO
GET THERE.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU
HAVE DONE.
VOLUNTEER TIME AND EFFORT.
I KNOW IT IS A LABOR OF LOVE.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
WITH THAT I WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU.
AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DAYLIGHT YOUR
WORK BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND
THIS COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS CONCLUDES THE AUGUST 7,
2019 MEETING OF THE PLANNING,
LAND USE, AND ZONING COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.
WE WILL SEE YOU ON SEPTEMBER 4.
WE ARE DRY.