Thread by @andrew_ace_agh

Alright! So this is #AceReporting now going through today's Land Use & Neighborhoods Committee. It is **THREE HOURS** so please bear with me.

We have some Comp Plan Amdts, the 2020-2021 Comp Plan Docket, some minor Rezones, Virtual Design Review, and Interim Floodplain Regs.

Today's tips will go towards my groceries ($50) and then anything raised in addition I am going to coordinate to get water and those oxygen sprays to unhoused people. They're $25 for a pack of three so every little donation helps!

Venmo: houstonace
CashApp: $Archstar

First up is public comment:

We are doing general comments and comments related to public hearings will be during that time.

First comment in favor of extending the current virtual design review process with a push to reform design review in general.

Second comment speaking against the virtual DR process, specifically the exception for affordable housing from DR entirely.

Third comment from @sharethecities, in favor of extending the DR ordinance and calling the current crisis unhoused people face due to the combination of COVID / fires / housing emergency "abusive."

Fourth comment also in favor of extending the DR ordinance (virtual meetings until 6+ mo after the emergency is over and exemption of affordable housing from the process).

Fifth comment is against.

(Gotta love these complaints that are essentially not recognizing how large the city is now compared to the past.) 🌚

Ok comments done and now we are getting into the proposed docket of amendments for 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

This is the yearly "technical changes" that occur between the major updates. The next major update will happen in 2024.

This is the list of docketed proposals not analyzed; all fairly notable:

- Impact Fees
- SF Zoning Alternative Name
- Fossil Fuels and Public Health
- 130th Street Urban Village
- South Park Urban Village

Notable comment: OPCD would rather look into an alternate name for single-family zoning during the major update process.

Comment from Vice Chair CM Mosqueda: we have studied this many times and the minor change of the name fits within these annual updates.

(seems like CM Mosqueda will be pushing the ball on that one!)

Fossil Fuels issue is something they'd rather look at through the major update because they lack capacity and it is outside their work plan.

re: 130th, they aren't quite ready to start that process yet

(no word on what OPCD actually has capacity to do)

and similarly with the South Park Urban Village. They want to look into this designation in conjuction with the rest of the urban villages during the major update.

CM Mosqueda asking questions about how long South Park residents have been asking for an urban village designation. It seems like during her discussions, they are asking for more housing and mixed use options down there.

Michael cannot answer the question (b/c the city...

(...hasn't asked the question.)

[Personally I have concerns around increasing the number of people who live in the middle of what is industrial land and former SuperFUND sites, but that's just me.]

So it seems like during the MHA process the city received concerned from others in the area about developing in South Park, so it seems another larger discussion must happen around this as well.

So the two minor changes include the rezoning of one plot of land into the West Seattle urban village (link: seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&…) and amendments to the Delridge Neighborhood Plan. (seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&…)

[I know this process is just for minor changes but it seems like A LOT of staff time goes into super tiny changes. Hmm.]

CM Lewis bringing us back to impact fees. (fun)

He wants to use impact fees to pay for infrastructure improvements: namely Vision Zero related improvements.

Who wants to explain why this is a problem?

CM Juarez just making sure that the public knows she's on it re: housing and is aiming to organize for the new light rail stations at 130th (and 145th), similar to the work done for new low income housing at Northgate.

Also noting the issues around sidewalks in the north end.

CM Juarez "we really need to look into what single-family means" discussing that it comes from a history of the past and we have different understandings of what family means now.

Again reiterates "in order to change culture, you have to change the language."

CM Lewis again coming back to impact fees and there being two different types of impact fees routes to pursue: one through the GMA and one through the transit benefit district.

(I do not like this)

CMs are expecting an audit of bridges next week and CM Pedersen is looking at the TBD funds to pay for improvements.

CM Mosqueda is bringing it back to SFZ and thanks CM Juarez for her words on it, noting we are currently at the highest percentage of people under 40 living with parents in the country's history and stressing the need to provide alternatives for housing (and upzones).

Next question from the CM is asking for details on the items the Planning Commission wanted docketed but are currently not:

(when pausing is helpful)

The ED of the Planning Commission is fairly vague outside of making clear that the name change for SFZ should happen sooner.

ok and now public hearing for these two amendment changes:

only two comments, both in favor of the rezone in West Seattle for the hospital land to join the urban village there.

(all of this for ten feet of height)

#yay

ok, NOW we're into the public hearing for the docketing of the 2020-2021 Amendments. There are 11 total that have run through the gamut of Planning Commission / OPCD / Central Staff to get to here today.

Link here for all the gritty details:

seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&…

(I'm actually going to print a copy b/c I can't follow everything. Also planning should not be this hard.)

Apparently OPCD is looking to potentially downzone(?) the area around the West Seattle urban village if the high bridge is out of commission for an extended period of time in order to slow growth there...

(the pain of this presentation and how dry it is)

CM Pedersen concerned about the proposed edit to move land in the U District from LR3 to Urban Center as it could impact naturally-occurring affordable housing. (NOAH)

Apparently there's a whole list of things OPCD will not consider for docketing as it has been brought up in the past.

(this is good I believe)

These won't be on the docket but OPCD is working on "Racially Equitable Covid Recovery" and "Connected Complete '15 Minute' Neighborhoods"

(and you know how much I love a 15 minute neighborhood)

[Officially halfway through this meeting (Jesus)]

CM Mosqueda asking for more information around the Racially Equitable Covid Recovery and who is being brought to the table to work on this.

OPCD saying that it's a collection of things under one umbrella but it's slow going.

CM Mosqueda is stressing that this important and concerning that the process is currently vague given the need to start work on this immediately with some more concrete ideas. Also noting the racial equity piece as part of Jump Start.

Ok and NOW it is time for public hearing. CM Strauss noting the history of comments, including the tree song.

First comment is coming from an elderly sounding bass of a voice, discussing development and the tree canopy.

next is Deb Barker, who is the author of the comprehensive plan amendment that would create mitigations for West Seattle.

(she's worried about more housing = more cars)

Current commenter is essentially saying "high capacity transit vehicles" are to blame for the failing of the West Seattle Bridge.

(me currently)

"We have no thoughts."

God, if that wasn't prescient.

Next comment is also about trees.

"We need to build taller around existing trees"

(that's what I've gotten so far)

Also concerns around building out to lot lines and asking for more regulations on building in the city.

Ok public hearing now closed and the vote on this legislation will be on the 23rd of September.

Now to Item 3 which is related to the rezoning of land in Rainier Beach for affordable housing.

Generally everyone is in favor and it's a good plan, but we're taking questions first.

(also curious as to what kind of map is the map behind CM Strauss)

I would fast forward but CM Morales is making excellent points around allowing these kinds of projects in areas that are low income and at high risk of displacement are key for the community and also touts the benefits of programs like the Equity Development Initiative.

(and now my internet is acting up)

Now going into a legislative rezone versus a contract rezone. TLDR the former (which this is) deals with larger policy changes and collections of sites versus one site only.

CM Pedersen is very much about protecting turf between different council members

CM Mosqueda just saying she thinks it's a good rezone and is in line with both community advocacy and the city's visions.

And it passes! Now into the bill relating to the extension of virtual design review.

Link for the presentation is here:

seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&…

Alright and we're back!

(Pandemics, you know)

First we have Lisa Rutzik (in charge of Design Review) explaining how virtual meetings have gone so far.

Generally things are ok, with all projects going virtual in October.

CM Mosqueda asks if timelines on permits have improved. Lisa says its currently unclear for projects still going through the process as although they don't have to be scheduled out, staff is now taking all projects and so most likely a wash.

Mike Podowski says re: Affordable...

projects that there are about a dozen that are exempted and they are still tracking them.

CM Strauss acting about how the virtual meetings have gone so far, with Lisa saying that have only been four projects so far. It seems like generally it's a wash as anecdotally it's been both positive and negative comments.

Lisa is noting that there's a lot advanced work before the meetings, about 3-4hrs of prep each.

So interestingly enough, Design Review needs the legislation to be able to hold meetings. If there was not this legislation, they could not fulfill the code requirement that project meetings be held in district, effectively putting a pause on the whole system.

Seems like there's also language access work happening (specifically for the International District Special Review Board only)

Getting some feedback from Historic Preservation meetings and it seems like sending small things like signs to administrative review are helping the board focus on larger items, though there meetings are still around 3-4 hours long.

Seems like 70 projects were converted from full design review to administrative design review in the time between the legislation and the set up of the virtual system.

The minor change in the revision to the ordinance would only allow projects that have passed EDG through ADR before December 31st.

CM Mosqueda asking why projects would not be switched back from ADR to full DR after EDG. Lisa explains it's complicated, mostly because the calendars for the boards fill up quickly.

(I would also argue you then have two different groups with different opinions looking at it.)

CM Mosqueda asking if there's been a slowdown in projects since the bridge closure, to which Lisa replies that it seems that is not the case.

CM Strauss making some kind of "maybe tech is the solution" ending response to the presentation on virtual design review.

CM Lewis just wants to quickly run down the bullet points to make clear what this legislation does and does not, which is wise.

First point is that only projects that have passed EDG by the end of the year will stay in ADR.

He asks Lisa how many that covers

She is unsure about how many projects that covers, but notes that they must pass EDG - not simply start the process.

CM Mosqueda wants to stress that it's wise to continue the legislation for 6 months after the emergency end b/c this could potentially screen out people who are immunocompromised from being able to serve on these volunteer boards.

CM Pedersen has concerns but says he will address them later.

(CM Pedersen is also a great example of the importance of both organizing and voting and what happens when people decide to keep quiet instead of explicitly supporting a candidate)

Me to me:

I'm skipping floodplain regulations because no one really cares, however I will note that this will become increasingly important the longer we decide not to act on climate change aka it's going to be expensive to buy out people's homes in South Park come 2100.

(CM Strauss needs to back up just a little from his camera)

and the meeting is completed! Thank you all for joining and we'll pick the rest up later.

/End