Speaker 3: Agenda Item 19 Resolution 31 917 Identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2021, and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and Societal Planning Commission review and to make recommendations about proposed amendments. The Committee recommends that resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Madam Park. Councilmember Strauss, you are the chair of the committee and are recognized in order to provide the committee report.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council president has just discussed the annual Council Comprehensive Plan Docket Setting Resolution, which identifies amendments that should be considered in the 2020 cycle to develop the docket. Potential amendments are submitted by the public to the departments or council members, and they are evaluated against a set of criteria included in Resolution 37, adopting a potential council's , agreeing that it meets the criteria for further discussion and consideration, and is asking of PCV in the Planning Commission to review and make recommendations for the action in 2021. There are six potential amendments included on the docket. The Council requesting the review, including expanding the boundary of University District Urban Center to include west of 15th Avenue, northeast between 56th Avenue and East, with an overt over reviewing policies and a comprehensive plan to determine whether changes are needed due to the failure of the West. Selfridge Review the goals and policies related to trees adjusting the title Single Family Zoning to operate with titles such as neighborhood residential preliminary changes related to the station area around future 130th Street Light Rail Station and preliminary changes recommended by the new Industrial Alliance. Maritime Strategies should that will be required this year. Additionally, the executive identified for potential docket of items due additional review, including whether South Park meets the criteria for an urban launch. Completing the planning work around 132 station Street Station, including possible urban village designation amendments related to reducing the impact of fossil fuel production and storage and further changes resulting from industrial maritime strategies. Finally, the resolution also recognizes that further analysis is needed to to implement impact these which were previously docketed and that council is leading the analysis . We there were several other amendments submitted that I was interested in acting on, but that did not ultimately fit within the comprehensive plan or criteria at this time. For example, when it was proposed to change the target date at which the city will meet its tree canopy goals, that they should be evaluated in the context of the foster management plan and a new tree ordinance rather than now, which I had requested to see if that could be possible to just move up the date, the target date for city to be extended, because it has been I've been instructed to hear back from the trees about the Urban Foreshore Management Plan and the new tree ordinance before doing so. And while some of the some of these topics did not fit within the proper point, typically I do look forward to continuing to work to address items, code changes, city budgets or other needs. I want to thank the morning for putting forward the brilliant the Tree Amendment, which I modified to fit within the criteria . Chris Lehman, thank you for our conversation outside committee last week. I do look forward to that every report.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, are there any additional comments on the resolution? Councilmember Peterson, please. And then Councilmember Mosqueda.
Speaker 4: Thank you, council president. Thank you, Chair Straus, for shepherding this through. And I really appreciate your comments about Dave Moore and Chris Lima and others who have good ideas for us to consider these. This legislation is really complex, and with the COVID pandemic and other things that were occupying my time, I know that I'll be more prepared next year to engage earlier in this process, and I know others will be looking forward to that too. So thank you for your leadership and getting us through, and thank you to Councilmember Swan for raising the real estate developer impact the issue. I'm glad to see that it is it is in here. There are several ways that those funds could be used if we were to agree on a program. Casper Swann mentioned transit. There's also possibility to use it for bridge maintenance or a combination thereof, either through GMA or through Transportation Benefit District at some point. So thank you for raising that Councilmember Smart.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Mosqueda and then Councilmember Morales. Thank you very much, Madam President. And thank you again to Councilmember Straus for your leadership on this. I ask during the last bill to clarify which amount of which item we were on, because I, too, was about to make comments on agenda item number 90. And so I'm glad that I held off. I did want to underscore my appreciation again for everything that you were able to get into. Agenda item number 18 and here on agenda item number 19. I do want to note for the record my concern that I brought up during the committee meeting, noting as well that I will be supporting this bill and voting yes today. But I wanted to note the importance of the conversation around single family zoning. And think again, Councilmember Strauss, for including the name change for family zoning in this year, advocating a resolution given the single family name is inaccurate, rooted in exclusion and as we discussed during the committee meeting, does not reflect the diverse and multi-generational housing that exists throughout our city. We had a robust conversation about how it is past time for us to update this terminology to create a more inclusive and accurate name, such as neighborhood residential. In fact, Seattle's single family zones have expanded year after year, and as they are expanded, they encompass multi-family structures. They've encompassed old apartment buildings, duplexes, triplexes that are throughout the city, including in the neighborhood I used to live in in Queens, and that a zoned for single family use but was an apartment building surrounded by other duplexes and triplexes. And it's really important that we have a name that is inclusive of the actual fabric of our city. We requested Pcdi to study the name change in 2018 in the companion resolution. We again requested this during the comprehensive plan annual docking process in 2019. So that's why there's a sense of frustration, I think. And if you go back and look at the tape from the committee meeting, there's frustration that this name change has been recommended as well by the Planning Commission and has been called on from housing advocates. Yet unfortunately it was not included in the piece of legislation that was transmitted to us this year in 2020 and because it wasn't already studied, we therefore cannot ask for it to be included in this year's update. It's frustrating and yet we are again including in for darkening for the third time through this piece of legislation for consideration as an amendment to next year's campaign update. So my hope is that the third time will be the charm and that this minor change could go into place, and that this major change truly would be an effort that would go far in updating how we talk about housing and Seattle to be more inclusive and equitable and change. That was a change that squarely fits within the priorities that have already been studied by other entities have been called for for many years. And it's truly a minor update. We should not wait until the next plan update in 2024. So thanks again to Central South and okay to make sure that we follow up on this language in this legislation regarding the study and so that we don't have another year go by without changing single family zones, hopefully residential. Neighborhood residential. Thank you, Councilman Muscat, for those comments. Councilmember Morales, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I am not part of the Land Use Committee, so I wasn't part of the ongoing conversation. But I'm happy to see that this resolution is here because I have a lot of questions. I think we all know that our plan is designed to guide the future actions of a community. It presents a vision for the future and long range goals and objectives. And our plan here in Seattle includes a focus on a growth strategy, the environment.
Speaker 0: And, importantly.
Speaker 2: On community well-being. So I'm really thankful that the Land Use Committee has included, again, these specific elements in the resolution asking for the analysis to be conducted. If, excuse me, if we want to move in a direction that advances a clean.
Speaker 4: Environment like health.
Speaker 2: Allows for the vision zero investments that lead to walkable, walkable, 15 minute neighborhoods. And we need the analysis of impact fees, a discussion of zoning and other issues that will allow us to make the critical changes that we need to make for the vision that we have of Seattle. That's how we plan for the seventh generation. That's how we repair the harm done to black and brown communities. So I am hoping, as Councilmember Skinner said, that the third time's a charm and that we have the analysis completed. We need in order to.
Speaker 3: Make these decisions. You.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Moran. That's are there any additional comments on the bill? Councilmember Lewis, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: So much. Madam President, I similarly just wanted to echo the comments from council members Sergeant and Peterson regarding the rocketing of in taxes as a potential source of revenue for transportation related projects in the future. As we have seen this year and in a recent editorial actually in public by the Transportation Choices Coalition Director, we continue to struggle with finding sufficient revenue options and revenue resources to to underwrite infrastructure and support for transit impact fees, particularly through the Transportation Benefit District, could offer an interesting path to explore, and I appreciate that we've targeted that today and look forward to working over the course of the next year on on that as a strategy and follow . Many of our neighbors in King County that have for four years used impact fees for certain infrastructure improvements. So with that, I look forward to voting for this today and and look forward to working on those docketed priorities over the course of the.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 4: Morales Yes.
Speaker 0: Mosqueda Yes.
Speaker 4: Petersen Yes.
Speaker 1: So what?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Strauss Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold Yes. Suarez. Yes. Lewis.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: President Gonzales.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: 9 a.m. favorite in a post.
Speaker 0: The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the port please affix my signature to the legislation? Adoption of other resolutions. Item 20 Will the court please read the title of item 20 into the record?
A RESOLUTION identifying proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2021 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about proposed amendments.