>>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 MEETING
OF THE PLANNING, LAND USE AND
ZONING COMMITTEE COME TO ORDER.
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY.
A DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE VOTE
ON COUNCIL BILL 119600 AND
AMENDMENTS THAT UPDATE THE
POLICIES.
A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
ON 1027, WHICH REVISES TO
PERVERT OPEN SPACE.
AND A BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION
ON RESOLUTION 31904.
THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
18 HAS BEEN CANCELED.
THE NEXT MEETING BE A SPECIAL
MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER
24 NOON.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WILL ADOPT
TODAY'S AGENDA.
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL TAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT AND ITEMS
APPEARING FOR TODAY'S AGENDA.
WE HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO
MINUTES.
IF THAT EXCEEDS TWO MINUTES,
THE MICROPHONE WILL BE TURNED
OFF.
SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO BEGIN,
SPY IDENTIFIED A HIMSELF IN THE
AGENDA ITEM THEY WANT TO
ADDRESS.
IS LIMITED TO ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA OR WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
THE COMMITTEE.
FIRST ON THE LIST IS MATT
HUTCHINS.
FOLLOWED BY ALINA PEREZ.
>> I WANT TO ADDRESS TWO THINGS
WITH REGARDS TO THIS.
IT HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY POWERFUL
AND I WON'T TAKE ANYTHING AWAY
FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS IT HAS PROVIDED.
BUT OVER TIME, THEY HAVE BEEN
LARGELY FUNCTIONALLY LOCATED BY
SEATTLE'S CODE.
SO AIR QUALITY, CONSTRUCTION
AIR QUALITY, PUBLIC SAFETY,
ENERGY, ETC.
THEY ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE NEED FOR THEM TO DO THE
SAME THING IS REDUNDANT.
THE SECOND THING I WANT TO
POINT OUT IS THAT WITH REGARDS
TO AMENDMENT 1, THE WAY IT IS
DRAFTED IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
CRAFT A ZONING MAP THAT WILL
MAKE SENSE.
BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON APPENDIX
B IN THE 2030 SEATTLE EQUITY
GUIDE THAT IS 28 MAPS COVERING
A RANGE OF FACTORS.
THE IDEA THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE
TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A BRIGHT
LINE BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW
DISPLACEMENT RISK, HIGH AND LOW
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY, WOULD,
WHO NESTS HOW ALL OF THOSE
DIFFERENT MAPS GET WAITED.
YOU WOULD END UP WITH THE
DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX ZONING.
YOU WOULD END UP WITH A SWISS
CHEESE OF AREAS OF HIGH AND LOW
OPPORTUNITY.
IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE ONE
SESSION.
THAT WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
APPEAL.
ONE THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED.
IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
CREATE THIS MAP THAT DOESN'T,
THAT WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS TO AN
APPEAL.
I DON'T THINK IT IS A GOOD
FAITH EFFORT TO ACTUALLY
ADDRESS EITHER ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS OR DISPLACEMENT AND
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I WOULD HOPE THAT IT DOESN'T
PASS OUT OF COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT ON OUR LIST IS ALINA PEREZ
FOLLOWED BY COLLEEN.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS ALINA PEREZ PUGET
SOUND STAGE.
I WANT TO TAKE YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE APPEAL
PROCESS.
PUGET SOUND SAGE IS AN
ORGANIZATION THAT IS FOCUSED ON
BUILDING COALITIONS WITH THOSE
MOST IMPACTED BY POLICY AND
DECISION-MAKING TO ENSURE THAT
WE HAVE COMMUNITY CONTROL'S
DEVELOPMENT, CLIMATE JUSTICE
AND GOOD JOBS IN OUR
COMMUNITIES.
AND WE KNOW THAT IS YOUR
INTEREST AS WELL.
AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T STAND
IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGES THAT
ARE BEING PROPOSED HERE.
WE DON'T STAND IN OPPOSITION.
WHERE WE DO STAND AND WHERE WE
HAVE ALWAYS STOOD IS ON THE
SIDE OF COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
MOST IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT
WITH THE LEAST POWER AND
ABILITY TO HOLD DEVELOPERS
ACCOUNTABLE.
AND ALSO LOOSELY DEFINED ON THE
GROWTH AND A PRETTY MAP THAT
WILL BE THE HIGH RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT WITH LOW
OPPORTUNITY.
WITHIN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, IT
IS THE LACK, BROWN INDIGENOUS
FOLKS THAT, LOW INCOME
INDIVIDUALS AND MARGINALIZED
MEMBERS OF THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.
WE KNOW THAT THE SEPA TOOL IS
NOT IDEAL.
WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU.
ON THE SEPA GRILL PROCESS.
FROM EQUITY STANDPOINT, IT IS
EXPENSIVE.
IT IS NARROW IN SCOPE AND IT
FORCES COMMITTEE MEMBERS INTO
MEETINGS THAT REALLY AREN'T
DESIGNED FOR THEM.
IT AND SET BEING, FEELING VERY
EXCLUSIVE AND DEMORALIZING.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE SEPA
PROCESS ISN'T IDEAL.
OUR QUESTION FOR YOU AND FOR
OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AS WE
CONTINUE IN THIS PROCESS IS,
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE
THIS WITH?
FOR THOSE COMMUNITIES.
FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
THAT IS THE COMMUNITY AND THE
CONVERSATION WE WANT TO ENGAGE
WITH YOU IN.
AS THIS PROCESS CONTINUES.
AND REALLY LOOK DEEPLY AT, IF
DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO HAVE
THIS STREAMLINED PROCESS, WHAT
DO WE GET IN RETURN?
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT IS COLLEEN McALEER.
>> HELLO, I AM COLLEEN FROM
THE COMMUNITY CLUB AND I
REPRESENT ARE COMMITTED TODAY
IN REGARD TO SEPA AND ALSO
COMMENT ON THE SECOND BRIDGE.
THE FIRST COMMENTS ON SEPA, WE
HAVE SENT A LETTER IN ALREADY.
BUT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS
IS A RUSHED PROPOSAL TO
ELIMINATE SEPA REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE PURPOSE IS REALLY TO
REDUCE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
IMPACT STAKEHOLDERS TO COMMENT
ON LAND USE ISSUES,
COLLABORATION AMONGST PARTIES,
STAKEHOLDERS, OFTENTIMES IS THE
BEST RESULT.
HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY THAT IS
GUARANTEED BY THE SEPA PROCESS
TO BE ELIMINATED IS VERY
SHORTSIGHTED.
OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, THE
CITY COUNCIL HAS ENACTED
SWEEPING CHANGES TO A LAND-USE
POLICY AND INCREASED HOUSING
OVER 30% OF UNITS.
MOST OF THESE UP ZONED AREAS
HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN DEVELOPED
AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN TO
MEASURE THE RESULTS.
OR STARTED THEM.
SO THE LCC REQUEST THAT THE
CITY WAIT TO A FEW YEARS PAST
FROM THIS PROCESS BEFORE THEY
BEGIN TO DISCUSS CHANGING SEPA
REGULATIONS.
AFTER ALL, ALL OF THESE UP
ZONES WERE DONE WITH THE
GUIDANCE KNOWING THAT SEPA WILL
BE THERE.
AND FINALLY, THE CITY COUNCIL
IS WELL KNOWN FOR TAKING THE
LEAD IN THE ENVIRONMENT, THESE
CHANGES DO NOT A COUPLE OF THAT
GOAL.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT GIVES
CARTE BLANCHE FOR THE
DEVELOPERS TO BULLDOZE THE
PROTECTIONS.
WE URGE YOU TO STOP THIS
PROCESS ON THIS CHANGE.
SECONDLY, WE DO URGE YOU ON
SECOND BRIDGE AS I TALKED TO
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO ABOUT
THIS FOR A LONG TIME.
IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED THEY
DON'T NEED A SECOND BRIDGE IN
SEATTLE.
GUESS WE DO.
WE HAVE TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF
INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH AROUND THE
MOUNTLAKE INTERCHANGE.
WE NEED PROTECTION FOR TRANSIT
TO ACCOMPLISH CAN DO THAT AREA.
IN ADDITION, THE EAST SIDE IS
REROUTING BUSES ALONG THE
TRIANGLE AND THEY WILL NEED
CAPACITY TO DO THAT
EFFECTIVELY.
INC.
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, CALLING.
THE NEXT ON OUR LIST IS RAY
FOLLOWED BY MEGAN.
>> I AM RAY AND I'M A CITIZEN
OF WALLINGFORD ALSO A
SCIENTIST.
I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON SALMON
RECOVERY AND HABITAT RECOVERY
FOR 25 YEARS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITIES
APPARENT LACK OF COHERENCE WITH
RESPECT TO STORMWATER PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS.
AND HOW THIS PROCESS SEEMS TO
BE MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION FOR THE FACTORS
THAT WE KNOW CONTRIBUTE TO
STORMWATER QUALITY PROBLEMS AND
WATER QUALITY ALBUMS.
AND HOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
MAKES REALLY GOOD SENSE TO SLOW
DOWN AND PRODUCE SOME MODELING.
OR SOME DATA THAT ACTUALLY
SHOWED UP INCREASING DENSITY
THAT THESE WILL EXACERBATE THE
PROBLEM.
TO A POINT WHERE WE END UP IN
SOME KIND OF FAILURE WITH THE
CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS
UNDER OUR STORMWATER PERMIT
THAT WE ARE ALREADY NOT
MEETING.
AND SOME ADDITIONAL PLANNING
FOR HOW WE WILL HANDLE THE
INCREASE RUNOFF ASSOCIATED WITH
HIGHER DENSITY BUILDINGS.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT IS MEGAN FOLLOWED BY
ACE HOUSTON.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM MEGAN CRUZ.
I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK THE
COMMITTEE OR TO DETERMINE IF WE
WILL NOT BE JOINED BY ANYONE
ELSE TODAY.
TO PLEASE TABLE COUNCIL BILL
119600.
THERE ARE MANY REASONS TO ASK
THIS BUT MOSTLY BECAUSE IT IS A
COMPLICATED, WIDE-RANGING BILL
THAT IS BEING RUSHED THROUGH
COMMITTEE AND HAS NOT BEEN
THOROUGHLY VETTED.
IT IS INTRODUCED JUST A MONTH
AGO.
AFTER COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT
WITH JUST A SINGLE CONSTITUENCY
THAT WOULD BE THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMMUNITY.
THOSE PEOPLE SAW THIS AS
ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS, AS THE
ONLY WAY TO OBSTRUCT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
OTHER THAN OPINION AND IF YOU
STORIES, THERE HAS BEEN NO DATA
TO SUPPORT THIS KIND.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO OBSTRUCT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
A CROWD OF PEOPLE FROM MANY
BACKGROUNDS, MANY WHO OBJECTED
TO THE BILL VOICED LEGITIMATE
úCONCERNS ABOUT DIFFERENT
ASPECTS OF THE LEGISLATION AND
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND HOW
IT COULD BE MADE MORE
EQUITABLE.
AFTER THE HEARING, PEOPLE
REACHED OUT TO THE COMMITTEE,
ASKING FOR MORE TIME TO MEET
WITH THEM AND EXPLAIN POSITIONS
AND TRY TO FIND SOME AREAS
WHERE THEY COULD IMPROVE THE
BILL AND NO ONE HAS HEARD FROM
THEM.
IT IS NOT JUST THE PUBLIC THAT
HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF THIS
PROCESS.
THROUGHOUT CITY GOVERNMENT,
THERE ARE VOLUNTEER BOARDS AND
DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS WORKING
EVERY DAY TO FIND WAYS TO AVOID
OR MITIGATE A DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN THAT WOULD ADVERSELY
IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT.
THEY HAVE HAD HARD DATA AND
STUDIES CONDUCTED.
THEY CAN GIVE YOU SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES OF WHAT WORKS AND WHAT
DOESN'T.
AND THEIR WORK SHOULD BE
REFLECTED IN THE SPELL.
YET, THIS BILL GIVES ALL OF THE
DECISION-MAKING TO ONE ENTITY,
THAT IS AS DCI.
I DON'T THINK ANY OTHER
DEPARTMENT WAS CONSULTED.
THERE HAS BEEN AN AMENDMENT TO
INCLUDE THEM BUT THAT IS AFTER-
THE-FACT.
WE ELECT OUR LEADERS TO LISTEN
TO US AND DO THE RIGHT THING.
WE MIGHT DISAGREE BUT IF YOU
LISTEN, YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE
A STAKE IN THE PROCESS.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAS HAPPENED
HERE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS ACE HOUSTON FOLLOWED
BY JEANETTE.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS ACE AND I AM GREER
LIVING ON CAPITAL.
I COME HERE INTO CAPACITIES, AS
A PERSON OF COLOR AND COME HERE
TODAY SPECIFICALLY AFTER
WASHING THE PREVIOUS MEETING ON
ITEM 1. WE ASKED TO PASS THEM
AT ONE.
AS A PERSON OF COLOR SPEAKING,
I ASK YOU TO GIVE ME EXTRA TIME
TO MAKE MY WHOLE STATEMENT.
>> 62 UNITS.
WHEN I MOVED FROM MY HOME STATE
OF TEXAS I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
BEING INVOLVED IN A PROJECT
THAT WAS STARTED IN 2015, TO
ALLOW'S IS TO DO UNITS AND A
GROCERY STORE INTO A VERY
WEALTHY AREA.
INTO THE 19, THAT PROJECT STILL
WAITS TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IS
A GROUP OF WEALTHY, MOSTLY
WHITE, HOMEOWNERS HAVE APPEALED
THE PROJECT FOR IMPAIRMENT OR
CONCERNS.
THE CITY THAT IS FACING DOWN A
HOUSING CRISIS BEFORE THE
RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT THAT AMAZON
WILL HIRE ANOTHER 10,000
INDIVIDUALS, THEY ALLOWED THEM
TO MOVE NEAR INTERBAY AND NOT
IGNORE THE LARGER RAMIFICATIONS
OF PARSING OUT HOUSING AT A
LOWER LEVEL THAN THE CITY HAD
BEFORE THE RECESSION.
AND THE CHAIN COULD NOT BE LED
BY COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE
MONEY TO FACE LEGAL ACTION AS I
HAVE SEEN HAPPEN TIME AND TIME
AGAIN AS THEY MOVED HERE.
I HAVE BEEN STUDYING AND
PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE FOR
OVER 12 YEARS.
AND RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN WE
MORE HOUSING AS IT IS, WE
RESERVE PRISTINE FOREST, BRUSH
THEM A TEMPERATE FOREST THAT
ARE IRREPLACEABLE.
IN ADDITION TO OUR ADDITIONAL
FARMS AND LAND OF ELEMENT.
THE FACTOR FOR PROJECTS IN
SEATTLE EXISTS FOR REASON.
I'M HERE TO ASK MY SEATTLE
NEIGHBORS TO TRUST US AS DESIGN
PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE TRAINED
AND PRACTICED FOR MANY YEARS TO
LEAD THE CHANGE IN CREATING
BEAUTIFUL AND RESILIENT
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE GREENER
THAN THEY CURRENTLY ARE.
AND WHILE CREATING SPACE FOR
MORE NEIGHBORS.
BECAUSE WE DO NOT SIMPLY DESIGN
FOR BEAUTY, WE DESIGN FOR
COMMUNITY.
AS A PERSON OF COLOR, RACE BY A
SINGLE MOTHER, A TEACHER, WHO
TAUGHT ME THE IMPORTANCE OF
EDUCATION, I STAND BEFORE YOU
TO SPECIFICALLY CONDEMN
AMENDMENT WONDERS.
I'M A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU PROVIDE TRULY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN AREAS OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
I WENT TO ONE OF THE BEST
SCHOOLS IN TEXAS WHO HAD THE
MOST APARTMENT BOXES IN THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE NEAR MY PART-
TIME JOB AS WELL AS PERSON OF
THE SPACE.
I MOVED HERE SPECIFICALLY
BECAUSE I SAW CITY THAT
RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR GROWTH
AND BRACES INNOVATION WHILE
HONORING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
AND THE TRANSPARENT COMMUNITIES
WHILE CORRECTING ITS PAST
WRONGS.
EXCLUSIONARY ZONING, I HAVE
LIVED AND LEARNED LOADS.
THE CONTINUATION OF THE RACIST
PROCESS OF REDLINING DURING
WHAT SOME OF US HAVE LIVED
THROUGH.
CHANGES HAPPENING HERE.
BUT I REFUSE TO STAND BY AS
WEALTHY HOMEOWNERS AS QUESTIONS
OF WHO WILL LOOK INTO THE
BACKYARDS WHILE SIBLINGS OF
COLOR WITH POORLY.
>> CAN ASK YOU TO PLEASE
CONCLUDE?
>> YES.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PEACE
KNEELING PROCESS.
WE NEED RADICAL, INSTITUTIONAL
CHAIN THAT GETS AT THE HEART OF
ALL FORMS OF SUSTAINABILITY.
ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL.
I BELIEVE THAT IS REFORM.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE BEEN JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO SAY THAT I
REMOVED MY MET ONE FROM THE
AGENDA.
WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING IT
TODAY BECAUSE THERE IS MORE
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS JEANETTE FOLLOWED BY
ROBERT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
COUNSEL?
MY NAME IS JANET AND I AM HERE
REPRESENTING SAFE THE MARKET
ENTRANCE GROUP, AND WE STAND
OPPOSED TO THIS ORDINANCE THAT
YOU ARE BRINGING UP.
WE BELIEVE THAT SEPA IS A
LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL LAW THAT
WAS PUT IN PLACE BY OUR STATE
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECT
RESOURCES SUCH AS SALMON.
SEATTLE HAS SALMON FLOATING
THROUGH IT.
IT IS YOUR OBLIGATION AS A
COUNSEL TO PROTECT THOSE
RESOURCE.
THEREFORE YOU MUST STAND TO
OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION AND
PROTECT THE SEPA, WHICH IS THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC AND
CITIZENS TO ACTUALLY BECOME
INVOLVED AND WEEK TO THOSE
RESOURCES.
SO I ALSO WANT TO SO THAT WE
WOULD LIKE TO BE, PLACE THE
SALE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD PAGE
TODAY IN THE RECORD BY
REFERENCE.
>> TO QUOTE THEM, IT SAYS RIGHT
HERE.
THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CUT THE
BED ROCK ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION RULES AND REDUCE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT.
DON'T BE FOOLED BY THE
GREENWASHING.
IT DOES THE ENVIRONMENT NO
FAVORS TO WEAKEN THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AS
PROPOSED BY COUNCIL BILL
119600.
THIS WILL MOSTLY BENEFIT REAL
ESTATE INVESTORS TRYING TO
FURTHER CASH IN ON THE AMAZON
BOOM.
WE URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS
PROPOSAL.
PLEASE STAND UP FOR THE
PUBLIC'S RIGHTS TO COMMENT.
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO APPEAL.
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO BE
INVOLVED.
AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>> THANK YOU.
NEXT ON OUR LIST IS ROBERT
FOLLOWED BY STEVE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I NAME IS BOB AND I AM ALSO A
MEMBER OF SAVE THE MARKET
ENTRANCE.
SEPA IS THE MOST CONFERENCE OF
TOOL OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE TO
PRESERVE AND PROVE THEIR
IMPAIRMENT.
I AM ALSO A FATHER AND I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN SEATTLE.
AS A BOARD MEMBER OF SAVE THE
MARKET ENTRANCE, WE HAVE RAISED
THE PROCESS AND BELIEVE ME IT
IS NOT A WALK IN THE PARK.
THE APPEAL PROCESS IS NOT
ABUSED BY THAT SELFISH RICH.
THIS IS A MISCONCEPTION BEING
INITIATED.
ONLY TRUE BELIEVERS WILL COMMIT
TO SPENDING THE TIME TO EDUCATE
THEMSELVES AND THEIR NEIGHBORS,
RAISED THE FUNDS TO HIRE LAND-
USE PROFESSIONALS, ARMED WITH
THE EXPERTISE TO LEVEL THE
PLAYING FIELD AGAINST AN ARMY
OF LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS
HIRED BY DEVELOPERS.
OUR ORGANIZATION IS EXPERIENCED
ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT BATTLING TO
CALL ATTENTION TO PROJECTS WITH
SEPA COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS IS
PAINSTAKING WORK.
SAVE THE MARKET ENTRANCE
REPRESENTS 88,000 INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN FOR
SEATTLE'S FUTURE LIVABILITY.
PLEASE, DO IMPROVE LAND-USE
CODE AND PROCESSES.
IT PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DO
IT RIGHT.
DON'T ROB THE PUBLIC OF ITS
ABILITY TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT.
DO NOT DESTROY WHAT WE HAVE
WITHOUT PROVIDING BETTER.
úTHANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NEXT ON OUR LIST IS STEVE.
>> WELL MAYBE YOU REMEMBER THE
OLD READING LIST.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUNIOR
HIGH OR HIGHS,.
1984.
AND ANIMAL FARM.
AS WE TALK ABOUT
ENVIRONMENTALISTS DESTROYING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ACT.
THE CITY HAS LONG WANTED TO BE
RID OF IT.
IT CAME ABOUT NOT FROM
POLITICIANS.
IT CAME FROM CITIZENS BECAUSE
GUESS WHAT?
THE CITIZENS BELIEVED THE
POLITICIANS WEREN'T GETTING IT
RIGHT.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER WAY TO STRIP
PEOPLE OUT OF THE PROCESS.
DESIGN REVIEW USED TO BE A
PROCESS WHERE YOU LOOKED AT THE
ENTIRE SITE, YOU HAD MANY
THINGS, AS A MATTER FACT, MOST
EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE.
ONE BY ONE, THEY HAVE BEEN
POINTED OUT.
THEY WERE TAKING CITIZENS OUT
OF THE PROCESS.
THIS PEOPLE, THOSE FILTHY
CITIZENS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND
DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK ONE DEVELOPER BEFORE
YOU, MANY MONTHS AGO, SAID THAT
HE DIDN'T LIKE THINGS GOING
BEFORE JUDGES BECAUSE THEY JUST
DIDN'T UNDERSTAND LAND-USE.
LIKE YOU DO.
I THINK THAT IT IS TIME WE
BRING CITIZENS BACK INTO THE
PROCESS AND THE FALLACY THAT
CITIZENS ARE ALL HORRIBLE.
ESPECIALLY IF THEY LIVE IN
HOUSES.
IF THEY ARE WHITE.
IF THEY ARE OLD.
IT IS A FALLACY.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE
INDIVIDUAL SITUATION AND NOT
KEEP PREJUDICE.
LET'S BUT THE SITUATION AND
ELIMINATING THE LAST BACKSTOP,
WHICH SEPA IS.
WE SHOULD BE DOING FAR MORE ON
THE FRONT-END.
AND WE WOULD HAVE FAR FEWER
PROBLEMS.
NOW I AM JUST ABOUT THROUGH SEE
YOU CAN LET MIKE KNOW HE CAN
COME OUT.
BECAUSE NORMALLY IN THE
DISTRICT, IF SOMEBODY ASKS HIM
A QUESTION, IT IS HARD.
HE LEAVES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT HAS, IT
HASN'T HAPPENED HERE.
HE CAN COME BACK AND --
>> THANK YOU.
AND I AM PLEASED.
I ASKED THAT WE REMAIN
RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER.
WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE PRESENT.
THAT SAID, WE WANT TO MOVE TO
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
THE FIRST ITEM IS A DISCUSSION
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON COUNCIL
BILL 119600, WHICH AMENDS THE
SEPA POLICIES.
WOULD YOU PLEASE READ IT INTO
THE RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
COUNCIL BILL 119600.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AMENDING
SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO CLARIFY TIMELINES AND
CONTENT OF ADMINISTERED OF
APPEALS, TO AUTHORIZE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF DIRECTORS WILL
TO CLARIFY THE CONTENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, AND TO
MAKE CORRECTIONS AND TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS.
>> THIS IS A THIRD MEETING IN
THE PAST WEEK ABOUT THIS
PROPOSAL.
I KNOW WE HAVE ALL HEARD ABOUT
IT QUITE A BIT.
LIST, FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC,
COULD YOU GIVE US ONE MORE
QUICK SCRIPTION OF WHAT THE
BILL DOES?
>> THIS LEGISLATION UPDATES THE
CITY'S REGULATIONS RELATING TO
THE ENVIRONMENT WILL ALSO ACT.
IT RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF
SEPA.
AND IT LOOKS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO EXISTING PROCESSES.
IT INCORPORATES NEW STATE
REGULATIONS.
IT BUILDS ON BEST PRACTICES
FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
AND IT ADDRESSES CONFUSING CODE
SECTIONS.
>> THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVERS
THAT ARE INCORPORATED FROM
RECENT STATE LAWS.
A MEMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
ZONING CHANGES WOULD BE EXEMPT
FROM SEPA APPEALS.
UNDER HOUSE BILL 1923 WHICH WAS
ADOPTED THIS SPRING.
INCLUDING ACTIONS SUCH AS
ADOPTING SUBAREA PLANS.
REZONING AREAS NEAR FREQUENT
TRANSIT AREAS.
OR CHANGING TO ALLOW FOR A WIDE
ARRAY OF HOUSING TYPES.
IT WOULD, IT BUILDS ON THE IDEA
THAT PROJECTS SHOULD ONLY, A
PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REVIEWED
ONCE UNDER SEPA.
AND STATE THAT IF A PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH AND
IMPLEMENTING THE CONFERENCE A
PLAN AND HAS BEEN STUDIED UNDER
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR
THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN, THE
PROPOSAL SHOULD BE SENT FROM
SEPA BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY
BEEN STUDIED ONCE.
AND IT INCORPORATES INFILL
DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTIONS THAT
CURRENTLY APPLY IN DOWNTOWN
SEATTLE.
AND OTHER URBAN CENTERS.
IT APPLIES THEM IN OUR URBAN
VILLAGES.
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH UP TO
200 UNITS AND IT IS ALL
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES, THEY
WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM SEPA
REVIEW.
BUT THERE IS A SEPARATE LEVEL
FOR PARKING.
SO PROJECTS WITH MORE PARKING
SPACES, THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT
TO SEPA REVIEW.
>> PROJECTS WITH PARKING
SPACES?
>> IT PROVIDES FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTIONS TO DEVELOP
DIRECTORS RULES TO HELP GUIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL, THE DEVELOPMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.
BASED ON BEST PRACTICES.
IT PROVIDES TIMELINES FOR THE
HEARINGS EXAMINERS APPEAL SO
THERE IS MORE CLARITY ABOUT
WHEN AN APPEAL WILL BE
COMPLETED.
AND THEN, IT MAKES SOME
CORRECTIONS RELATED TO ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS.
CLARIFYING THAT BECAUSE STATE
LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS, IMPACT SAYS ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS IS NOT AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT
SHOULD BE STUTTERED UNDER SEPA
THAT IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL.
IT REMOVES A SECTION RELATED TO
THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
CONFLICTS WITH PROVISIONS IN
THE LAND-USE CODE AND RELIES ON
CLEAR GUIDANCE IN A LAND-USE
CODE ABOUT WHEN PERMITS SHOULD
BE ISSUED.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSION OF THIS STATE LAW
AND THE LAND-USE CODE IS CLEAR
THAT THE CITY CANNOT MAKE A
DECISION UNTIL SEPA APPEALS
HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
SO THIS SECTION DOESN'T, THIS
ACTION DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH
THAT CLEAR GUIDANCE UNDER SEPA.
THAT --
>> TO CLARIFY THAT A BIT, I
THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.
THE IMPACT OF THE LEGISLATION,
IT APPEARS, GIVE THE GREEN
LIGHT FOR THE PROJECT TO
CONTINUE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING
THAT STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT IT
IS NOT ALLOWED.
>> IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
AND WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE
LAND-USE CODE THAT PROVIDES
CLEAR DIRECTION ABOUT WHEN A
PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED.
AND STATE THAT ALL APPEALS NEED
TO BE RESOLVED.
EXCEPT FOR APPEALS TO THE
COURT.
BUT ALL CITY LEVEL APPEALS NEED
TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE A PERMIT
CAN BE ISSUED.
>> SO WHERE'S THE CONFUSION
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS BILL
COMING FROM?
>> THIS BILL DOESN'T INCLUDE
THE LAND-USE CODE, THE EXISTING
LANGUAGE.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS
LANGUAGE BEING STRUCK OUT IN
THE SEPA CHAPTER AND THEY ARE
NOT SEEING THE EXISTING
LANGUAGE WITH CONTINUED
FORWARD.
>> THAT IS SECTION 2376 028
SEE.
IF ANYONE WANTS TO LOOK AT IT.
>> AND FINALLY, IT CLARIFIES
THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
MAY, IF IT CHOOSES, BE A LEAD
AGENCY ON THE SEPA ANALYSIS FOR
PROPOSALS THAT THE COUNCIL OR
OTHER PARTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT PROMULGATE.
>> THANK YOU, 25.05.545 FIVE.
WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSION ON THIS
AND WE HAVE HAD A PUBLIC
HEARING AS WELL.
GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A BIT OF A
TIME CONSTRAINTS, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET OUT
OF HERE, HOPEFULLY BEFORE 1:30
PM.
ARE THERE ANY PRESSING
QUESTIONS THAT MY COLLEAGUES
MIGHT HAVE FOR 25?
JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, WE HAVE
ANOTHER COMMITTEE MEETING THAT
WILL BE STARTED AT 2:00.
>> I WILL BE MINDFUL OF THAT AS
WELL.
>>
>> YES, SORT OF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE
RIGHT TIME TO ASK.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION.
PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSED WITH
PARKING SPACES GREATER THAN 40
SPACES, WILL STILL BE
APPEALABLE.
WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY A
RESIDENT OF THE CITY WHO HAS
APPEALS PROJECTS BASED ON THE
NUMBER OF PARKING SPOT THAT
WERE PROVIDED.
AND DONE SO SUCCESSFULLY.
IT IS GOOD TO KNOW THAT THOSE
TYPES OF APPEALS WOULD STILL BE
ABLE TO GO FORWARD.
I THINK, I REALLY STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE
LEGISLATION.
TO MINIMIZE THE TIMELINES
ASSOCIATED WITH THESE APPEALS.
I KEEP HEARING FROM FOLKS,
LEGISLATION AS PROPOSED, THAT
IS GOING TO BACKFIRE ON THE
CITY AND HARM OUR ABILITY TO
MINIMIZE THE TIME TAKEN WITH
APPEALS.
FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS ACTING NOW
IS THE CITIES HEARING EXAMINER
HAS EXPRESSED THOSE CONCERNS.
70 WHO HAS BEEN A HEARING
EXAMINER FOR A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME, TED HUNTER, AND THE
ARGUMENT THEY HAVE MADE IS THAT
WHAT HAPPENS IN A SEPA APPEAL
ACTUALLY HELPS THE CITY.
AND SUBSEQUENT GMA BOARD
APPEALS AND THE MASTER PLAN,
SHORELINE BOARD APPEALS AND
SUBSEQUENT IN SOME CASES
JUDICIAL APPEALS.
SO THERE ARE CORRECTIONS THAT
CAN OCCUR AS A RESULT OF A SEPA
APPEAL THAT ACTUALLY
STRENGTHENS OUR CASE.
AND SUBSEQUENT APPEALS ARE
OWNED HERE.
THE HEARING EXAMINER HAS ARGUED
THAT THE 2018 WORKLOAD WAS AN
ANOMALY.
AND AGAIN, THE CONCERN IS THAT
ESTABLISHING A TIMELINE OF 150
DAYS IS ACTUALLY TOO LONG.
AND SO THERE IS A LOT OF
CONCERN IT SEEMS THAT THE
THINGS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO
IN THIS BILL ARE ACTUALLY GOING
TO RESULT IN AN OPPOSITE
OUTCOME FROM REMOVING BARRIERS
TO PROVIDING HOUSING IN OUR
CITY.
I AM CONCERNED.
THERE IS A LONG LIST OF
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS
NECESSARILY THE RIGHT TIME TO
ASK THEM.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE
DONE THE ANALYSIS TO
SPECIFICALLY ASK, OF THOSE SEPA
APPEALS, WHICH ONES OF THEM
RESULTED IN SUBSEQUENT POSITIVE
OUTCOMES FOR THE CITY?
BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS APPEALED.
AND I KNOW IT HAS BEEN SAID
THAT THE SEPA PROCESS HAS BEEN
MISUSED.
I THINK THERE IS SOME QUESTION
ABOUT HOW THE CITY INTERNALLY
IS MANAGING THAT PROCESS.
I THINK WE COULD LEARN A LOT
FROM DIALING DOWN MORE INTO
WHAT HAS HAPPENED EACH STEP OF
THE WAY.
SO I'M NOT ASKING I SUPPOSE ANY
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT I WANT
ANSWERS TO RIGHT NOW BUT I AM
SIGNALING SOME BROADER CONCERNS
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE
LEGISLATION BEFORE US IS
ACTUALLY GOING TO ACCOMPLISH
OUR GOALS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> YES.
I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE IN A
CONVERSATION BECAUSE I DO FEEL
IT WILL MEET OUR GOALS.
A COUPLE COMMENTS, I APPRECIATE
YOU REACHING OUT TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER.
I APPRECIATE HIS RESPONSE.
CLEARLY THERE HAS BEEN AN
UPTICK IN SEPA APPEALS IN
RECENT YEARS.
IT IS PROBABLY PREMATURE TO
CONSIDER THAT AS AN A NOMINATE.
BUT THERE'S A SENSE I HAVE THAT
THIS IS A NEW NORMAL.
MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS ARE
BECOMING MORE AND MORE FAMILIAR
WITH THIS TOOL.
AND IT IS USED BY FOLKS
REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE ON
A SIDE OF AN ISSUE.
IF YOU WANTED TO DELAY A
PROJECT, THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO
DO IT.
WE ARE SEEING MORE AND MORE OF
THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT IS A BUMP IN
2018 IT WILL GO AWAY.
THAT WAS A BIG ONE FOR SURE.
BUT IT IS APPROACHING 10 MONTHS
NOW.
IT IS A SIMPLE THING.
WE HAD BACKYARD COTTAGES.
THE BALL CONTINUES TO ROLL ON.
YOU KNOW, THE, A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT APPEALS OVER THE
DECADES ON IT.
YOU KNOW, WE WILL CONTINUE TO
BE I BELIEVE AGGRESSIVELY
TRYING TO FIND NEW HOUSING
OPTIONS IN THIS TIME.
SOME FOLKS WILL BE OPPOSED TO
THAT.
AND I BELIEVE WE WILL CONTINUE
TO SEE MORE AND MORE APPEALS.
AND SO, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT
TAKING AWAY THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN
FRUSTRATING FOR ME BECAUSE I
AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT
THE THERE ARE BENEFITS TO
HAVING'S PROCESS.
STATE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE WE
HAVE A HEARING EXAMINER
PROCESS.
IT REQUIRES THAT THERE IS A
PROCESS THROUGH STATE LAW THAT
THEY CAN GO TO THE STATE COURTS
AND RESOLVE IT AFTER WE PASSED
SOMETHING TO SEE IF IT IS IN
VIOLATION.
THERE IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO US
BEING PROACTIVE ABOUT THAT.
INSTANCES YOU SITE ABOUT HOW IT
HELPS US DEVELOP THE EVIDENCE
ON WHATEVER SIDE WITH SOMEONE
THAT HAS A LITTLE MORE
EXPERTISE IN LAND-USE THAN
SOMEONE THE COURTS MAY HAVE.
ESTABLISH THAT BODY AND RECORD
TO BE USED LATER IS A GOOD
THING TO DO.
I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS TIMES
WHERE THESE CHALLENGES DRAGGED
ON, OFTENTIMES IT SEEMS BECAUSE
TURNER ATTORNEYS ON EITHER SIDE
WILL CONTINUE TO ASK FOR MORE
DISCOVERY.
THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT
DRAGGED ON.
OFTENTIMES WE HAVE SEEN WHERE
ATTORNEYS ARE ON VACATION OR
THE INDIVIDUAL IS ON VACATION.
AND THE IDEA OF PUTTING A
TIMELINE IS TO SAY, THIS IS
NOT, IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT
HAPPENS AT THE HEARING
EXAMINER, YOU CAN STILL GO TO
COURT AND TO ALL OF THOSE
THINGS.
CAN WE REFINE THIS PROCESS TO
MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE
STREAMLINED?
AS THE HEARING EXAMINER SAYS
HIMSELF, IN A LOT OF CASES, 120
DAYS IS TOO LONG.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 120 DAYS.
IT WILL NOT LONGER.
IT JUST SAYS ON THESE LONG
ONCE, SHORT DOWN.
IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO GET A
DIFFERENT ATTORNEY BECAUSE THEY
ARE ON VACATION, BUT THAT IS
THEIR JOB.
NOT OUR JOB TO SAY S EXTENDED
FOR 3 MORE MONTHS.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW THIS HURTS
US OR BACKFIRES.
AS FAR AS TIMING.
>> SO YOU DID IT KNOWLEDGE THAT
THE SEPA PROCESS CAN SOMETIMES
PRODUCE POSITIVE OUTCOMES FROM
THE CITY?
FOR THE CITY?
CAN YOU TALK A BIT ABOUT HOW,
WHY IT IS YOU DON'T THINK THIS
LEGISLATION WILL HARM THAT
REALITY?
>> BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT
WITHIN 120 OR 150 DAY WINDOW,
--
>> THAT THE TIMELINES.
ON THE THINGS WE ARE MAKING.
WE ARE CREATING CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS FOR.
>> ON THOSE THINGS?
YES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TIME ONE.
THE THINGS WE ARE CREATING
EXEMPTIONS, WHAT I AM SAYING IS
THE OUR PART OF THE POLICY THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN VETTED.
IT WOULD NOT HAVE A PROCESS.
I AGREE THOSE POLICY
INITIATIVES.
>> WHEN WE GET SUED, A HEARING
EXAMINER --
>> WE WILL HAVE THE BENEFITS.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS
NOT THE CASE.
SO FOR ALL THE CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE PART OF
THIS BILL, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU
REVIEWING AS PART OF THE
CONFERENCE OF PLAN?
OR ARE YOU REVIEWING IT ON A
PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS.
A NON-PROJECT PROPOSAL BY A NON-
PROJECT PROPOSAL BASIS.
SO IF THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES OF CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS INCLUDED IN THE
BELL, THE FIRST IS PROJECTS
WITH 200 OR FEWER UNITS.
IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVEN'T, AND
URBAN VILLAGES WHERE WE HAVEN'T
ALREADY MET THE CONFERENCE OF
PLAN GROWTH ESTIMATE.
IF WE ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF
THE GROWTH ESTIMATE, THAN THAT
AMOUNT OF GROWTH THAT AREA HAS
ALREADY BEEN ANALYZED.
AND THE SPECIFIC ZONING
PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN ANALYZED
BECAUSE WE HAVE ANALYZED THAT
WHEN THE ZONING WENT TO PLACE.
SO THE IDEA IS, AS LONG AS YOU
ARE WITHIN THE COMP PLAN
ESTIMATE, WE HAVE ANALYZED THAT
GROWTH AND WE UNDERSTAND IT.
WE HAVE MADE THE DECISION THAT
WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE
THAT GROWTH.
ON THE NON-PROJECT SIDE, IT
INCLUDES A PROVISION FROM STATE
LAW THAT SAYS THAT IF THERE IS
A PROPOSAL THAT IMPLEMENTS A
COMP PLAN, THAT IS REQUIRED TO
IMPLEMENT THE COMP LAND AND
THAT COMP PLAN HAS BEEN THROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THEN IT
IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT.
IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO WITH A
STRAIGHT FACE SAY THAT HAS BEEN
STUDIED, THE COMP PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IT WILL
NEED TO BE DETAILED ENOUGH SO
WE CAN SHOW A DIRECT LINE
BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL GENERALLY
IN THE ZONING CHANGE AND THE
COMP PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS.
SO AGAIN, THE COMP PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WILL
STUDY THE CHANGE AND THE
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT WOULD BE
IMPLEMENTING THAT CHANGE AND
WOULD BE PART OF WHAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN STUDIED.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING
THAT THE ONLY, PUTTING ASIDE
THE NON-PROJECT-BASED
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS AND
FOCUSING ON THE PROJECT BASED
ONES, THE ONLY THING WE ARE
LOOKING AT IS THE DENSITY
QUESTION.
NOT ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS
THAT WE MITIGATES.
>>.
SO PEOPLE SUE ON ALL OF THOSE
THINGS.
>> ATTACHED ONE TO THE
LEGISLATION.
IT INCLUDES AN INVENTORY OF ALL
THE OTHER WAYS WE MITIGATE THE
ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND THAT IS BASICALLY A
STATEMENT OF HOW WE HAVE
ADDRESSED EACH OF THOSE
ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
THAT STUDIED UNDER SEPA.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WITH STORM
WATER, WHICH CAME UP THIS
MORNING, OR AFTERNOON I GUESS
IT IS.
WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE
IN PLACE TODAY THAT REQUIRE ON-
SITE DETENTION AND RETENTION OF
STORM WATR.
THEY ARE NOT IN PLACE FOR
EXISTING BUILDINGS.
WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM OUR
STORM WATER EXPERTS AND THAT
NEW BUILDINGS DO A MUCH BETTER
JOB, EVEN IF THERE IS A LOT
MORE COVERAGE OF REDUCING
IMPACTS ON OVERFLOWS DOWN
LETTING THE EXISTING BUILDINGS
STAY IN PLACE.
SO WE HAVE AN ENERGY CODE
REQUIREMENT THAT GOES BEYOND
THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS.
NEW BUILDINGS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY
BETTER IN TERMS OF REDUCING
ENERGY DEMAND THAN EXISTING
BUILDINGS.
PARTICULARLY MY OWN HOUSE.
AND SO, AS WAS MENTIONED, WE
HAVE BUILT OVER TIME A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT MEASURES TO
ADDRESS AREAS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND I AM SURE WE
WILL KEEP RATCHETING UP THOSE
REQUIREMENTS.
>> SO THERE ARE NO, THERE WOULD
NOT BE AN ISSUE WITH PROJECTS,
NOT ON THE POLICY SIDE, WE ARE
NOT GOING TO LOSE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DEFECTS
THROUGH EIGHT SEPA REVIEW?
IT'S UNSECURE SAYING THAT THE
CITY ISN'T GOING TO MAKE ANY
MISTAKES.
THAT WE COULD USE THE SEPA
APPEAL TO FIX.
AND I AM JUST, WITHOUT HAVING
MORE OF A DEEP DIVE OF THESE
PAST SEPA APPEALS IN COMPARISON
TO WHAT THINGS WE ARE CREATING
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS FOR, I
AGAIN, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS LEGISLATION ACTUALLY
RESULTING IN MORE LAWSUITS OR
MORE LOSSES IN COURT.
AND LONGER TIMELINES.
>> I DON'T HAVE DATA ON ALL OF
THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN
THROUGH SEPA BUT OF THE
PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN
APPEALED, A QUARTER HAD AT THE
HEARING EXAMINER, A QUARTER
WERE EITHER REMANDED OR ASKED
TO GO BACK FOR ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS.
I LOOKED THIS MORNING AT ALL OF
THE PROJECT LEVEL ACTIONS.
OUT OF 30, LET ME LOOK AT MY
NOTES.
OUT OF 32 PROJECT LEVEL HILLS,
ONLY TWO OF THEM WOULD BE
EXEMPT UNDER THESE PROPOSED
EXEMPTIONS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO OUT OF
HOW MANY PERMITS THE CITY HAS
ISSUED OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.
DOES A BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
AND WE ARE NOT TODAY.
>> AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE IS,
IN THOSE TWO INSTANCES, WAS OUR
CASE STRENGTHENED?
>> THEY, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY
WENT TO THE COURTS.
ONE OF THEM WAS THAT LIVABLE
APPEAL AND IT IS NOT THAT
REZONE THAT YOU HEARD BUT IT IS
ONE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE
CONTRACT REZONE THAT YOU
RECENTLY HEARD WITH THE SETBACK
ISSUE.
>> AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS
REALLY HIGH PROJECT IN BALLARD.
SO THAT WAS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT WITH COMMUNITY
SERVICES THAT WAS DELAYED
BECAUSE OF SEPA APPEALS.
>> WHY WAS THAT, I THOUGHT
THOSE WERE ALREADY CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS?
LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS.
>> NO.
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
>> WITHOUT TO RE-CREATE A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION?
>> IN 2012.
IN THE LEGISLATION.
>> FOR SENIOR HOUSING AND FOR?
>> I DON'T THINK IT IS SENIOR
HOUSING.
IT IS THAT
>> I THOUGHT WE DID IT FOR BOTH
SENIOR HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE GIVEN THE
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.
AND THEN WE DID MOVE FORWARD
WITH SOME SORT OF CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION BUT NOT OTHERS.
>> IT IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN
BUILT.
IT INCLUDES THE URBAN REST
STOP.
>> BECAUSE OF THE URBAN REST
STOP FACILITY THAT THEY WERE
ABLE TO APPEAL.
I'M NOT SURE.
>> FOR ME, LET ME MAKE SURE I
HAVE CLARITY ON THE PROCESS.
SEPA IS A STATE LAW.
IT HAS A SET OF REQUIREMENTS ON
WHAT THE PROCESS WE HAVE TO GO
THROUGH AND WHAT AN APPEAL
PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.
ON TOP OF THAT, WE PUT OUR
HEARING EXAMINER AND ALLOWED AN
ADDITIONAL APPEAL PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY.
WE ARE FULLY UNIQUE AND.
BUT NOT TOTALLY.
THE LARGE JURISDICTIONS IN
WASHINGTON HAVE THAT HEARING
EXAMINER.
WHEN SOMETHING IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM SEPA, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE HEARING PROCESS OR
NOT, THAT WOULD MEAN TO ME THAT
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE APPEAL
PROCESS TO THE KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT.
BY THE FACT THAT WE SKIP OUR
PROCESS THAT WOULD'VE HELPED US
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT PROCESS,
THAT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT SO
IT DOESN'T EXIST ON THE BACKEND
WERE ARE FRONT AND STUFF
WOULD'VE HELPED.
SO WITH SEPA, BECAUSE THE STATE
HAS SAID THIS IS NO LONGER
REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH SEPA, WE
CAN DO WHATEVER ADDITIONA
PROCESS WE WANT ON OUR END.
WHEN WE ARE DONE, IT DOESN'T GO
THERE.
FOR ME, THIS NARROW SLICE OF
PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THE
AUTHORITY TO OUR LARGE POLICY
PROJECT.
WE DON'T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD
HAVE THE OPTION.
I DON'T WANT THE NEXT COURT TO
BE TIED UP FOR 6 MONTHS IN THE
PROCESS AND DELAY THAT.
I WANT TO SEE THE THINGS,
FORWARD.
>> SO --
>> I AGREE.
I'M CONCERNED THAT IN TAKING
THIS ACTION, THAT WE ARE GOING
TO BE INVITING MORE LAWSUITS
RATHER THAN SEPA APPEALS.
THAT THEN HELP US.
>> AGAIN, THE ONLY TIME THEY
CAN HAVE THE LAWSUIT FOR SEPA
IS IF IT IS NOT CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT.
>> THERE IS STILL A JUDICIAL
PROCESS THAT FOLKS CAN GO
THROUGH.
>> NOT IF IT IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT AND NOT IF THE WAIVER,
NOT IF APPEALS HAVE BEEN --
>> THE GMA BOARD PROCESS AND
THE SHORELINES BOARD PROCESS,
THOSE ARE ALL CONTINGENT ON
HAVING A SEPA PROCESS?
>> THEY WOULD BE ON OTHER
TOPICS NOT RELATED TO SEPA.
THAT COULD BE APPEALED BASED ON
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
EXAMPLE.
>> I'M NOT PRETENDING THAT I
HAVE ANY EXPERTISE IN THIS
AREA.
I AM MEETING THE RESPONSES FROM
PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTED AS
HEARING EXAMINERS.
AND THE COMMENTS OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER IN 40 CITIES FOR 30
YEARS IS THAT APPEALS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS
PROVIDE CITIZEN OVERSIGHT AND
ACTIONS AND APPEAL WILL TO THE
DEFECTS OF AGENCY REVIEW.
LEAD TO A BETTER INFORMED
DECISION AND APPEAL IN A
REVERSAL.
IT CAN HELP DEFEND THE CITY IN
A JUDICIAL REVIEW.
>> ETHICS, SINCE YOU REFERENCED
TED HUNTER, HE IS A GOOD FRIEND
AND SPECIFICALLY IN HIS EMAIL,
HE REFERENCED, HE ASKED US AS A
COMMITTEE TO, IF HE COULD
PROBABLY USE SEPA ON SEPA AND
DELAY THIS LEGISLATION.
IN THE SHORT TIME THAT I HAVE
BEEN HERE ON THE COUNCIL,
WHETHER THAT HAS BEEN FOR
LAWTON OR THE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT LEGISLATION, I
HAVE SEEN A FIRST-HAND EXAMPLE
OF HOW SEPA HAS BEEN MISUSED OR
WEAPON NICE TO DELAY PROJECTS
WHICH WE COLLECTIVELY WOULD
WISH TO MOVE FORWARD FASTER IF
WE COULD.
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CROSS
CODE ARTICLE LAST YEAR WHICH
REFERENCED THE DELAYS WITH MHA
AND THE SEPA APPEAL PROCESS
WHICH HAD, THE DELAY HAD
CONSERVATIVELY COST 717 UNITS.
FOR THOSE FAMILIES, THOSE
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE STRUGGLING
AND FOR THIS PROJECT TO MOVE
FORWARD, FOR ME PERSONALLY,
EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN
CONCERNED ABOUT US MOVING RUSH
PROCESS, I DON'T BELIEVE WE
HAVE.
WE HAVE TAKEN AMENDMENTS AND
FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AND
TED'S EMAIL AND FEEDBACK HAS
BEEN INCORPORATED IN A COUPLE
AMENDMENTS I HAVE PROPOSED,
WHERE I THOUGHT THERE WAS
LEGITIMACY AFTER WORKING WITH
CENTRAL STAFF.
AND SO WE HAVE DEFINITELY GONE
THROUGH A VERY, DONE OUR DUE
DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC.
AND SO IT IS PART OF THE REASON
I THINK WE CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD AND WE KEEP MOVING
FORWARD.
ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR CONCERNS AND I
WANT YOU TO KNOW I HEAR YOU.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE ARE DOING,
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING WITH
REGARDS TO REFERENCES TO EITHER
TED'S EMAIL OR THE SEATTLE
TIMES ARTICLE FROM THIS
MORNING, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT
GUTTING ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS.
RATHER I THINK WE ARE
RESPONDING TO WHAT THE STATE
HAS GIVEN US IN HOUSE BUILT
1923 TO RESPOND ACCORDINGLY TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE MOVING
FORWARD AS THE CITY CONTINUES
TO GROW.
SO --
>> THE HEARING EXAMINER
ADDRESSES THE MHA HEARING AND
THE TIMELINES AND I THINK
IDENTIFIES THE NEED FOR MORE OF
AN INTERNAL LOOK AT THE REASONS
FOR WHY THAT PROCESS TOOK SO
LONG.
HE WRITES IN THE END, THE CITY
REQUESTED SEVERAL ADDITIONAL
MONTHS TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY
REQUESTS.
ALL PARTIES INCLUDING THE
CONFLICTS, WITNESSES THAT
DELAYED THE HEARING, I JUST
REACHED OUT TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER YESTERDAY.
JUST RECEIVED THIS TODAY.
I WANT TO STATE AGAIN, THIS IS
NOT ABOUT MY LACK OF SUPPORT
FOR THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
I AM NOT MAKING AN APPEAL FOR
MORE TIME FOR THE SAKE OF MORE
TIME.
I THINK THERE IS MORE ANALYSIS
THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR.
AM NOT GOING TO HOLD THIS UP
ANY LONGER.
I RECOGNIZE WE HAVE TIME
CONSTRAINTS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> I THINK THERE IS, IT IS
COMPLEX FOR SURE.
AND I THINK THAT THE FOLKS HAVE
A MIX OF INFORMATION.
SOME IS ACCURATE AND SOME
INACCURATE.
I THINK THAT IS CONFUSING THE
MATTER TOO.
AGAIN, THE THING THAT HAS BEEN,
A COUPLE THINGS OF BEEN
FRUSTRATING.
ONE IS THE DELAYS THAT HAPPENED
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BUSY.
IT TAKES LONGER.
THE CITY, I KNOW SOMETIMES THE
CITY WILL BE LIKE, THEY ARE
DOING DISCOVERY, WE NEED MORE
DISCOVERY.
WE NEED TO SHORTEN IT UP AND
SAY THIS ISN'T THE MOST INTENSE
CORE PROCESS.
ALMOST CERTAINLY, SOMETHING AS
COMPLEX AS MHA, AND THE POLICY
LIKE THAT, I IMAGINE WOULD BE,
WOULD FIND A WAY AROUND THESE
TIMES BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
NECESSARY AND BOTH PARTIES
WOULD AGREE TO THAT.
THAT IS SOMETHING LIKE
TRANSPORTATION FEES THAT EVERY
OTHER JURISDICTION IN THE
REGION HAS DONE.
DO THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH A
YEAR-LONG PROCESS?
SIMILARLY I DON'T THE BACKYARD
COTTAGE LEGISLATION WAS NEARLY
OF THE SCALE OF MHA.
I THINK THAT THERE WILL, WHEN
THINGS LIKE MHA, LUNG, WHICH
MIGHT BE ONCE A DECADE OR
WHATEVER, THAT IS ONE THING.
THERE IS A PATH FOR PARTIES TO
AGREE THAT IS MORE COMPLEX BUT
THE IDEA IS TO, FOR THE REST OF
THEM, LET'S GET THE THINGS
DONE.
THAT IS WHERE THIS HELPS.
AGAIN, WHERE SEPA LAW IS STILL
IN EFFECT, THERE IS STILL A
SEPA APPEAL PROCESS AT THE
CITY.
WE WANT TO SHORTEN THE TIME ON.
THE HEARING EXAMINER SAYS FOR
THE MAJORITY OF THE TIMELINE,
WE WILL DO THAT ANYWAY.
DECISIONS THE HEARING EXAMINER
BEING LAZY EITHER.
AND SO WE, WHEN THE HEARING
EXAMINER IS BUSY, IF IN FACT MY
ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT THAT THIS
IS THE NEW NORMAL, WE WILL SEE
MORE AND MORE APPEALS, WE NEED
TO FIND MORE RESOURCES TO MEET
THE DEADLINE WHICH IS
IDENTIFIED AS SOMETHING WE NEED
TO WORK ON.
BUT AGAIN, WHERE THERE IS A
SEPA PROCESS THAT COULD PLAY
OUT IN COURTS, WE WILL STILL
HAVE A HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS
IN FRONT OF THAT.
WHEN WE SET POLICY, IT SAYS
WHETHER IT IS IN THE COMP PLAN
OR IF WE WILL BE ABLE TO GO
THROUGH A PROCESS AND DECIDE
WHAT OUR GOALS ARE AS A CITY,
THAT PROCESS IS APPEALABLE.
IT IS THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T
LIKE THE OUTCOMES OF THAT.
I GET THAT.
AND THEY SAID WE WANT ANOTHER
PROCESS WHERE WE CAN SUE AGAIN.
IT IS LIKE, NO.
WE HAD THE PROCESS AND WE MADE
A DECISION.
WHEN WE REVISIT IT IT IS FINE
BUT IT SHOULD BE TWO AND THREE
LAYERS OF APPEALS THAT CAN
CONTINUE TO DELAY THE PROCESS.
IT IS FAIR TO HAVE THE APPEAL
PROCESS AND AS 25 IDENTIFIED,
IT IS THE PLACE WHERE WE WILL
DO IT.
ON A BIG SCALE.
BUT THEN YOU DON'T GET A
SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH BITE AT
THE APPLE.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE ENOUGH
RESOURCES TO HIRE ATTORNEYS AND
YOU CAN KEEP DELAYING THIS
INTEL THEY WEAR US OUT.
THAT IS THE PIECE THAT FEELS
LIKE IT IS HAPPENING SO OFTEN.
AGAIN, BUT THESE APPEALS ARE
COMING FROM, NOT COMING FROM
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO IT.
WE MIGHT NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO HAVE ACCESS TO THESE TOOLS
TWO.
IT FEELS LIKE IT IS AN UNFAIR
SYSTEM THAT IS BEING USED
SPECIFICALLY BY CERTAIN CLASS
OF PEOPLE.
AGAIN, PRODEVELOPMENT PEOPLE,
ANTI-DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE, THEY
ARE BOTH USING IT IN MY
EXAMPLE.
AND SO IT IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT
THAT.
>> MY PERSONAL FAVORITE IS
USING IT TO DELAY THE BULLET
CENTER WHICH, I THINK IT IS A
JEWEL OF A PACIFIC NORTHWEST.
AND SUCH, HOW DO YOU USE IT?
THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL BUILDING
IN THE WORLD, TO ME, THIS IS
WHERE I FOUND AGREEMENT WITH
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
IT IS A TOOL THAT HAS BEEN
WHAT A NICE.
AS SUCH, WE WANT TO BE BOTH
RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THE STATE
HAS ALLOWED US TO DO AS WELL AS
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS THAT INVEST US TO
RESPOND.
>> I DON'T THINK, WE HAVE
LOOKED AT ALL OF THE EXAMPLES
OF WHEN IT HAS BEEN HARMFUL.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE DONE
AN ANALYSIS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE AREN'T EXAMPLES
OF WHEN IT HAS BEEN HELPFUL TO
MAKING THE CITY'S GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES.
>> I GUESS, THAT IS ON A
TIMELINE SENT.
THERE ARE EXAMPLES WE CAN LOOK
AT.
AND THROUGH THE PROCESS WE HAVE
LEARNED THINGS.
THIS PROCESS WILL CONTINUE.
YOU COULD SAY IF WE TOOK A YEAR
ON THE PROCESS INSTEAD OF 120
DAYS.
WE WILL WE WOULD LOON,, LEARN
MORE.
>> IS ON THE EXEMPTION SIDE
TWO.
>> THAT IS FAIR.
IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WE ARE
ALLOWED TO HAVE CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION BECAUSE THE STATE HAS
AUTHORIZED IT, THERE IS ANOTHER
PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN APPEAL.
THAT IS FINE.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
THERE IS A TRADE-OFF.
I GET IT.
>> SO I THINK WE ARE KIND OF,
WE HAVE HAD ROBUST DISCUSSION.
I APPRECIATE IT.
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE
AMENDMENTS, I THINK YOU HAD AN
MENDMENT TO START WITH?
>> AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS BUILT
ON STATE LAW THAT WAS JUST PAST
THE PAST SPRING WHEN THE BILL
WAS INTRODUCED.
IT HADN'T BEEN CODIFIED YET.
THE SUBSTITUTES VERSION 4D,
BASICALLY IT ADDS SIN THE
SECTIONS OF THE REVISED CODE OF
WASHINGTON TO REFLECT HOUSE
BUILD 1923.
AND A FEW OTHER VERY MINOR
TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
>> SO I MOVED TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL 119600 BY SUBSTITUTING AS
SHOWN IN THE AGENDA.
IS THERE A SECOND?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THE PLEASE
VOTE AYE.
THE MOTION PASSES.
OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
BELIEVE YOU HAVE WITHDRAWN YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> FOR THE TIME BEING.
I MIGHT BE BRINGING BACK
ANOTHER VERSION OF IT AFTER
WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS I
THOUGHT I WAS BEING RESPONSIVE
TO IN THE LETTER I DISTRIBUTED
LAST WEEK FROM THE SITE LINE
AND ANOTHER ORGANIZATION.
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT?
>>> I WOULD VERY MUCH.
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO IS AN
AMENDMENT WE DISCUSSED LAST
TIME.
THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY WOULD AS
IT RELATES TO DRAFTING RULES,
WOULD REQUIRE US TO WORK WITH
OTHER DEPARTMENT THAT HAVE
EXPERTISE IN THE SUBJECT AREA
THAT FOR WHICH THERE DRAFTING
RULES.
MORE OR LESS.
>> AND I WOULD MENTIONED IT
THAT IS STANDARD PRACTICE.
>> THERE A SECOND?
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
VOTE AYE.
MOTION PASSED.
LEMON NUMBER THREE, IT IS AN
AMENDMENT I PROPOSED BASED ON
COMMUNITY SUGGESTION THAT
HUNDRED.
IT WOULD REQUEST THE HEARING
EXAMINER INCLUDE OPPORTUNITIES
TO STREAMLINE THE APPEAL
PROCESS AND THE ANNUAL REPORT.
IS THERE ANY QUESTION OR
DISCUSSION?
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
LETTER TO US, THEY MAKE
REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT HE
HAS MADE IT A PRIORITY TO,
ACTUALLY HE ASKS US TO WAIT
UNTIL THE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DO THIS.
HE MAKES REFERENCE TO THE FACT
THAT HE IS WORKING ON THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
WE ARE WONDERING WHETHER OR
NOT, RATHER THAN JUST
DESIGNATING THIS WORK TO THE
ANNUAL REPORT, DO WE WANT TO
ADDRESS THE FACT THAT HE IS
ALREADY PLANNING ON TRYING TO
WORK ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES
WITHIN THEIR RULES AND
PROCEDURES?
>> I THINK THAT --
>> THE ANNUAL REPORT WILL COME
LATER.
HE IS MAKING A COMMITMENT TO
RULES, WORK ON RULES AND
PROCEDURES NOW.
>> THIS GOES A LITTLE FURTHER
AND ASKS WHETHER THERE ARE
RESOURCES OR SECTIONS OF THE
CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, OUTSIDE OF
THE HEARING EXAMINER RULES.
THAT COULD BE IMPROVED.
BUT YES.
AFTER DRAFTING THIS, WE DID
HEAR FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER
THAT HE IS PLANNING ON
PRESENTING THE RULES.
>> I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AS
WRITTEN BUT I JUST THINK WE
MIGHT WANT TO PERHAPS BEFORE
THE FULL COUNCIL THINK ABOUT
TRYING TO INCORPORATE THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S.
>> YES.
I RECEIVED THE LETTER TODAY.
SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH JUST
TABLING THIS BEFORE THE FULL
COUNCIL.
>> I DON'T MIND, I WASN'T
SUGGESTING NOT TO VOTE ON IT.
I WAS JUST THINKING THERE MIGHT
BE MORE WORK WE COULD DO AFTER
VOTING ON IT.
WHATEVER YOUR PREFERENCE.
>> I WILL WITHDRAW AND COME
BACK WITH ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK.
>> OKAY.
SO MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER FOUR.
I AM PROPOSED LEMON NUMBER FOUR
LIKEWISE.
AFTER HEARING COMMITTEE
RESPONSE.
THAT IS TO SHORTEN THE APPEAL
WIND UP TO 60 DAYS RATHER THAN
120 DAYS IN THE LEGISLATION.
I THINK IT FINDS A SWEET SPOT
BETWEEN THE APPEAL FOR PROJECT
ACTIONS, WHICH TEND TO BE
QUICKER.
TO 90 DAYS AND MAINTAIN THAT
120 LIMIT FOR NON-PROJECT
ACTIONS.
>> TO CLARIFY, IT IS 90 DAYS.
>> MY APOLOGIES.
>> ANY QUESTIONS?
>> SO ONE MORE TIME WHAT THIS
WOULD DO?
>> FOR THE PROJECT ACTIONS?
OR THE LAND-USE WORLD FOR USE
PERMITS?
IT WOULD BE A 90 DAY TIME
PERIOD THAT CAN BE EXTENDED BY
30 DAYS.
FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS OR
COUNSEL LAND-USE ACTIONS.
IT WOULD BE 120 DAYS.
>> OKAY.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE
VOTE AYE.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
>> EXEMPTIONS?
>> THE MOTION PASSED.
NUMBER FIVE, THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RULES.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> FANTASTIC, THANK YOU.
SO AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE JUST
CLARIFIES AGAIN, ALREADY
CURRENT PRACTICE BUT CLARIFIES
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S ARE
SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE RULES
THAT APPLY ALREADY TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S AND THE
DEPUTY HEARING EXAMINER'S.
ALL THOSE RULES INCLUDE RECUSAL
OF AN EXAMINER IN PROVIDING
FOR, TO SEEK THE THIS
QUALIFICATION OF THE PERCEIVED
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THESE ARE RULES THAT EXIST FOR
BOTH THE HEARING EXAMINER AND
THE DEPUTY HEARING EXAMINER IT
IS CLARIFIES THE RULES SHOULD
ALSO APPLY TO THE TIMES.
>> I'M HAPPY TO SECOND IN
SUPPORT.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION?
>> I SEE NONE.
ALL THIS IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE
AYE.
>> OPPOSED?
>> THE MOTION PASSES.
LAST, WE HAVEN'T AMENDMENT
NUMBER SIX.
I APOLOGIZE WE COULDN'T GET IT
BEFORE THE AGENDA.
THIS LAST AMENDMENT IS COMING
FROM A SUGGESTION BY THE OFFICE
OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BETTER
ALIGN THE PARTS OF THE CITY
CODE.
IT WOULD ALSO CHANGE LANGUAGE
BY DELEGATING LEAD AGENCY
STATUS TO SAY THAT COUNSEL CAN
REQUEST ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AS
LEAD AGENCY STATUS.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT?
TO ADD?
ANY QUESTIONS?
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> I WILL SECOND IT.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THESE
VOTE EYE.
>> I -- THE MOTION PASSES.
WITH ALL THOSE MOMENTS BEHIND
US, I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND I ARE BOTH WORKING
SEPARATELY.
ON THE MINUTES.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD
ON THE AMENDED BILL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS
OR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
>> I SEE NONE.
I MOVED TO ADOPT COUNCIL BILL
119600 AS AMENDED.
>> I WILL SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE
SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
ABSTAINED?
THE MOTION PASSED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, 1025 FOR
YOUR HELP IN THE LEGISLATION.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN FOR YOUR
COSPONSORSHIP WITH ME AND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD FOR YOUR
HELPFUL A MEMBERS.
I WANT TO THANK THE HOUSING
ADVOCATES THAT HAVE ASKED US TO
LEAD ON THE ISSUE.
THE LEGISLATION HAS TAKEN A
SLIGHT DELAY TO MEETING THOSE
REQUIREMENTS BUT WILL BE BACK
BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR THE
FINAL VOTE.
THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS A
FINAL DISCUSSION POSSIBLE VOTE
ON 27 WHICH AMENDS OPEN SPACE
INCENTIVES.
WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE
DEVIATED TITLE INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119597.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
LAND-USE AND ZONING MUNICIPAL
CODE TO REVISE EXISTING
REGULATORY INCENTIVES TO
PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND ALLOW
DEPARTURES FOR TOWER SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE PROJECT
INCLUDES A LANDMARK THAT IS
SUBJECT TO LANDMARK CONTROLS
AND INCENTIVES TO ADOPT BY THE
CITY COUNCIL.
>> ALY PENNUCCI.
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> 28, AS IT, OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK
OVERVIEW.
>> HABIT YOU.
1027 WOULD UPDATE AND EXPAND AN
EXISTING INCENTIVE AND THE
SOUTH LAKE TO PRESERVE
PRIVATELY HELD OPEN SPACE.
AS THE CHAIR NOTED, THE
COMMITTEE HELD BRIEFING ON THE
PROPOSAL AT THE MEETING ON
SEPTEMBER 4. THE PROPOSAL WOULD
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AREA TO
DEVELOPMENT AND AMEND SOME
ASSOCIATIVE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, IN EXCHANGE FOR
PRESERVING QUALIFYING OPEN
SPACE.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS WOULD
PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE TO A
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF JOHNSON STREET
BETWEEN BOREN AVENUE AND
FAIRVIEW AVENUE IN EXCHANGE FOR
PRESERVING AND MAINTAINING THE
SEATTLE TIMES PARK LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF JOHN STREET
AND FAIRVIEW.
THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED AS
PUBLICLY OPEN SPACE.
THE OWNERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
WOULD BE REQUIRED AND MUST
MAINTAIN IT FOR PUBLIC ASSESS
INTERPRETER.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS
SUBJECT TO THE MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM.
MUST COMPLETE THE REVIEW AND
APPROVAL PASSES THROUGH THE
LANDMARKS IS A VISION BOARD ON
THE DESIGN REVIEW REVIEW BOARD.
SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ARE ADJUSTED OR THE
DEPARTURE IS MADE AVAILABLE TO
THIS PROJECT.
THEY STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE
APROVAL PROCESS.
THE STUFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY
ISSUES FOR THE COUNCIL, FOR THE
COMMITTEES CONSIDERATION.
NOR ARE ANY AMENDMENTS OPPOSED.
WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING MORE TO ADD.
>> I KNOW THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY
HAS BEEN WORKING ON FOR A LONG
TIME.
IT IS BEEN A HIGH PRIORITY.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW HAS
DONE IN BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I KNOW I HAVE MADE COMMITMENTS
TO TRY TO WORK ON THIS AND
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW
THROUGH.
SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU DID.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE COMMUNITY
OUTREACH.
I KNOW THAT AT THE LAST MEETING
WE HAD, MEMBERS FROM THE SOUTH
LAKE UNION COUNCIL SPOKE IN
SUPPORT.
THAT SAID, I MOVED TO ADOPT 27.
>> I SECOND.
>> THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE VOTE
AYE.
THE MOTION PASSES.
THIS WILL BE BEFORE THE FULL
COUNCIL ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER
16.
THANK YOU.
>> ONE FINAL ITEM OF BUSINESS
IS A RESOLUTION UPDATING THE
CITY'S POSITION ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND BRIDGE
ACROSS THE MONTLAKE CUT.
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE,
RESOLUTION 31904, A RESOLUTION
RELATING TO THE STATE ROUTE
520, INTERSTATE 5 TO REGINA
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HIGH
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT,
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION AND
MAKING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE
FUTURE CONFIGURATION OF A
SECOND MONTLAKE VASCULAR RIDGE.
>> THANK YOU, COLIN.
THANK YOU CALVIN CHOW FOR
JOINING US.
CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE
RESOLUTION AND THE BACKGROUND
THE GOT US HERE?
>> SURE.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION BEFORE
YOU WOULD SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION MONTLAKE
VASCULAR BRIDGE.
IT WOULD SUPERSEDE RESOLUTION
THROUGH 1411 AND 31611.
ACROSS LAKE WASHINGTON, THE
SECOND BRIDGE WOULD ACTUALLY BE
A SECOND DRAWBRIDGE ADJACENT TO
THE EXISTING BRIDGE ON THE
MONTLAKE CUT.
THE PROJECT HAS BEEN IN
DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1997 WITH
EARLY PLANNING BEGINNING ON THE
STUDY.
IN 2011 AND 2012, THEY TOOK
OVER THE SEATTLE COMMUNITY
DESIGN PROCESS TO REFINE DESIGN
CONCEPTS ON CONTENTIOUS
ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT AND
FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS, THE
CITY EXPRESSED ITS POSITION ON
SECOND BRIDGE IN A COUPLE OF
RESOLUTIONS.
2012, THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR
ESTABLISHED CITY POLICY ROUTE
RESOLUTION 31411, WHICH
RECOMMENDED THEY NOT CONCERT
THE SECOND BRIDGE WITHIN THE
CIVIL FUTURE.
THE RESOLUTION EVALUATED THE
COST AND IMPACT OF THE BRIDGE
AT THE POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING
PEDESTRIAN MEANS BY OTHER
MEANS.
THE VELVET OF LIGHT RAIL IN THE
QUARTER COULD INCONSIDERATION
BE IN THE FUTURE.
IN 2015, THEY MADE FURTHER
RECOGNITION THROUGH RESOLUTION
31611 THAT FUNDING FOR THE
SECOND BRIDGE BE USED FOR
PLASTERING IMPROVEMENTS THAT
WOULD BE LISTED IN THE
RESOLUTION.
AND THOUSAND 15, BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE APPROVED FOR THE
PROJECT INCLUDE FUNDING FOR THE
SECOND BRIDGE.
THAT IS PART OF THE SCOPE FOR
SR 520.
THE WSDOT HAS NOT ANNOUNCED ANY
TIMETABLE FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION.
THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY STATED
ITS INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT,
CONDUCT ADDITIONAL COORDINATION
AND OUTREACH WITH COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDERS AND CITY OFFICIALS
REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE
SECOND BRIDGE PROJECT.
THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BEFORE
YOU NOTES SEVERAL CHANGES SINCE
CITY TOOK A POSITION ON THE
BRIDGE.
IN PARTICULAR, THE RESOLUTION
NOTES THAT THE OPENING OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LIGHT
RAIL STATION ON MARCH, 2015
AVERAGES OVER 2000 WEEKDAY
BOARDINGS ANNOUNCERS OF THE
TRANSIT HUB FOR SEVERAL SOUND
TRANSIT BUSES.
THE RESOLUTION ALSO NOTES THE
OPENING OF THE SR 520 BICYCLE
TRAIL ON DECEMBER 2017.
WHICH CONNECTS THE UNIVERSITY
OF WASHINGTON TO THE REGIONAL
WILL NEVER.
WITH THESE OPPOSED RESOLUTIONS,
EPLACE THE PREVIOUS POLICY
WITH A POSITION SUPPORTING
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SECOND
BRIDGE TO INCREASE CAPACITY FOR
TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIANS AND
BICYCLISTS.
THE NEW POLICY RECOMMENDS
MAINTAINING THE EXISTING NUMBER
OF GENERAL TRAFFIC LANES AND
THE RESOLUTION FOR THE REQUEST
THAT THEY ESTIMATE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MIDI STICK
WITH YOUR INPUT AND EXPLORE
WAYS TO ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION TO
COINCIDE WITH ELEMENTS TO
REDUCE THE OVERALL DISRUPTION
IN THE MONTLAKE QUARTER.
>> THANK YOU, CALVIN.
SO IN MY TIME THAT I HAVE BEEN
ON THE COUNCIL, I KNOW THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN ANY
CONVERSATIONS BEFORE I GOT HER.
MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT WILL
CONTINUE AFTER.
IT IS BEEN MY DESIRE TO BOTH BE
RESPONSIVE TO THE DISTRICT BUT
ALSO HERE THE COMMUNITY
CONCERNS ON WHAT WE CAN TO TO
IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE
LIGHT RAIL STATION AND I DO
HAVE A LETTER FROM THE
LAURELHURST COMMUNITY COUNCIL
THAT HAS BEEN EMAILED TO
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
TO SUPPORT THE SECOND BRIDGE.
SO I AM IN ALIGNMENT AND TRYING
TO BE AS RESPONSIVE AS I CAN TO
MY DISTRICT.
WE KNOW AS WELL THAT THE REGION
IS GROWING.
WE ANTICIPATE 1.2 MILLION NEW
JOBS.
TO BE PROACTIVE IN
ACCOMMODATING THAT GROWTH, I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO
EXPAND OUR TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE.
AS WE KNOW, THE WASHINGTON
STATE LEGISLATURE INCLUDED
FUNDING FOR THE DRAWBRIDGE OF
THE MONTLAKE CUT AS PART OF THE
SR 520 2015 PACKAGE.
THE BRIDGE, THE SECOND BRIDGE
WOULD BE BUILT ALONGSIDE THE
EXISTING MONTLAKE BRIDGE.
BLESSED IN THE CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHED IT, IT WASN'T
THOUSAND 15 BEFORE THE OPENING
OF THE LIGHT RAIL STATION.
PRESENCE OF THE STATION HAS
INCREASED THE DEMAND FOR PEOPLE
WALKING AND BIKING IN THE
MONTLAKE QUARTER.
IN ADDITION, THE KING COUNTY
METRO AND SOUND TRANSIT NOW
PLAN TO ROUTE MORE BUSES ACROSS
THE MONTLAKE CUT TO CONNECT THE
STATION OF THE HUSKY STADIUM.
THE MONTLAKE BRIDGE IS ONE OF
THE MOST USED BRIDGES IN THE
CITY BY PEDESTRIANS AND
CYCLISTS.
THEY HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT THERE
UPDATING TRAFFIC FORECAST AND
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIANS IN
PREPARATION FOR THE PROCESS AND
2020.
THIS PROCESS WOULD RENEW, THE
RENEWED CONDITIONS OF THE UNION
LINK STATION IN PLACE AND
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR US THOSE
DISCUSSIONS BEGIN, THE
RESOLUTION OF THE POSITION TO
MAKE RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION OF
THE CITIES PRODUCE.
IT WOULD FURTHER REQUEST THAT
WSDOT IS UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR
COMMITTEE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
AND INPUT AND EXPLORE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE THE
PROJECT SCHEDULE SUCH THAT IT
COINCIDES WITH OTHER SR 520
CONSTRUCTION AND REDUCES THE
OVERALL DISRUPTION IN THE
QUARTER.
I THINK AS SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T
OWN A CAR AND CONSIDERS ALL OF
THE MOBILITY OPTIONS, THIS IS A
PERSONAL PRIORITY.
AND SO I AM HOPEFUL I CAN FIND
THE SUPPORT IN THIS COMMITTEE
TO PROVIDE A NEW UPDATES TO THE
CITY'S POSITION.
>> QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU.
SO IN 2012, 2015, WHEN THE CITY
TOOK THE POSITION THAT THIS WAS
NOT A PRIORITY, WAS IT BECAUSE
OF OPPOSITION?
OR WAS IT BECAUSE FOLKS JUST
THOUGHT THAT THE FUNDS COULD BE
SPENT IN A BETTER WAY?
NAMELY FOR PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE
AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS?
SMACK AT THE TIME, THE CITY HAD
UNDERTAKEN A REPORT TO LOOK AT
TRIGGERS IF YOU WILL FOR WHAT
MIGHT WARRANT A SECOND BRIDGE.
AND DETERMINE AT THE TIME THAT
A SECOND BRIDGE WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY IMPROVE TRANSIT
OPERATIONS BECAUSE IT IS STILL
A DRAWBRIDGE THAT WOULD BE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO OPENINGS AT THE
SYMPTOM.
NOTED THAT THE FURTHER
CONGESTION ALONG THESE DATES,
BEING A CONSTRAINT IN THE
QUARTER, THE POSITION AT THE
TIME WAS TO LOOK FOR OTHER WAYS
TO TRY TO IMPROVE THOSE
CONNECTIONS, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS
WITHOUT THE FULL COST OF THE
SECOND BRIDGE.
THIS WAS THE TIME OF THE
PROJECT WASN'T FUNDED.
SO THERE WAS STILL CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHERE TO SPEND THE MONEY.
THE WASHINGTON STATE
LEGISLATURE FUNDING PROJECT.
>> AND I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING
THAT.
HAVE THE OTHER ADJACENT
COMMUNITIES IN THE DISTRICT,
>> MY OFFICE CONTINUES TO DO
THE OUTREACH.
WE JUST HAD THE TOWNHALL AS
WELL WHERE WE DID HEAR FROM
RESIDENTS IN THE DISTRICT IN
SUPPORT AND AGAIN, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW AS THE
DYNAMICS OF THE UNION LAKE
STATION HAS CHANGED AS WELL AS,
IMPROVE THE TRANSIT ACCESS TO
THE LIGHT RAIL STATION, I CAN
ONLY SAY THAT THE DYNAMIC HAS
CHANGED.
FROM THIS POSITION BACK IN
2015.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE FOR IN
COMMUNITIES BUT IT IS MY HOPE
THAT WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL
DISCUSSION TODAY AND FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS WE CAN BE TASKED
WITH.
SO THAT I CAN BRING THESE BACK
BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING ON
SEPTEMBER 24.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS, THE
OTHER ADJACENT COMMUNITIES.
THAT IS IT.
>> WELL THANK YOU, CALVIN.
>>> THIS CONCLUDES THE
SEPTEMBER 11 MEETING OF THE
PLANNING, LAND USE AND ZONING
COMMITTEE.
ONE LAST REMINDER, OUR NEXT
COMMITTEE MEETING IS ON
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 STARTING
AT NOON.
THE SEPTEMBER 18 MEETING HAS
BEEN CANCELED.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.