The ‘green’ mayor wants to ease environmental reviews. Que?
What?!? Mayor Nickels, who is building up his own reputation as a ‘green sustainable’ urban mayor wants to reduce the number of projects that are required to go through environmental review:
The changes would require fewer projects to pass environmental review. A town-home complex with four or more units, for example, currently has to go through environmental review if proposed for an area zoned for low-rise development.
If the City Council passes the changes, the trigger point for that review would rise from four units to 10 units. The trigger points would also rise for commercial developments and high-rise buildings.
The argument for the change is that the city’s zoning code is already tough enough on protecting the environment for smaller projects. Really? Here’s a photo of an exempt single-family house that didn’t require an environmental review to get built- hmmm…- don’t see anything unsustainable here.
Anyway, a city council vote on this is expected to take place today.
12 comments
Hey a comment from a former student at NSCC!
“Mayor Greg Nickels has proposed easing environmental reviews for developers.” Does the rest of the country see how he panders to developers??
I thought he is the “Green Mayor” as far as I can see, he is in bed with all the developers.
I am sick of all these poorly designed, non-green condos invading my Green Lake backyard, and other neighbors backyards. Most do not fit into the neighborhood. Each time I look up there is another crane in my line of sight.
What is a citizen to do?!
Keep pressure on City Council to enact significant and substantive changes in Design Review that increases the independence and power of the Boards to prevent ugly designs.
More generally, ask them to review the entire citizen land use participation process to increase citizen PARTICIPATION instead of just citizen COMMENT. This extends from landmarking through design review to a remodeled and effective appeal process.
Shortly after voting in favor of restricting SEPA in much of the city, Councilmember Burgess released his newsletter, which contains the this statement:
“SEPA Changes Protect Neighborhoods
The Council passed legislation this afternoon that raises the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) thresholds for certain projects in the city, but only after amendments I proposed in an earlier committee meeting significantly reduced the scope of the changes originally proposed by the Mayor by limiting them to the city?s (sic) six Urban Centers and Station Area Overlay Districts.”
Go figure.
In response to my letter to the Council, Sally Clark wrote back with a view taht the Council majority seems to share: that SEPA is some sort of add on which can be repaced with design review.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both design review and SEPA.
Our communities would never trade design review for our rights under SEPA. For notice reasons alone, we can not lose our SEPA rights. Design review, of course is limtied to, you guessed it, “design”. It does no include substantive authority to mitigate environmental impacts and rights to appeal, which are critical for community groups to ensure that conerns are addressed.
Can we really say that developments of 50 yards by 26 yards (approx 12,000 sq feet) never have a signficant impact, especially in conjunction with other proposed developments?
Keep those comments going into the Council to urge the reconsider and drop plans to expand this categorical exemption to far more of the city.
Gerry Pollet
SEPA reviews are lousy enough, getting rid of them will only make things worse. The “new” Ingraham review is out. Check it out Seattleschools.org . Still doesn’t acknowledge the trees as an environmental sensitive area. Nor does it take into the account the over development going on in the area. On the 24th there will be a “meeting” to discuss the plans to build on the west end, and the replacement trees that are quivalent to Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar. Like 300 5-6ft trees maintained by th e school district will be equivalent to 200 foot Douglas Fir and Red Cedar in 10-20 years. If you leave the 100 foot trees now, in 10-20 years they will reach the 200 foot level. But then I am just a common citzen with no knowledge of landscape and tree value.
Many residents of the North Capital Hill community are very disappointed in the Councils vote yesterday. This change to the City’s SEPA ordinance is a very real travesty. The headline and first paragraph in today’s PI concerning the council’s approval of the SEPA changes gets right to the thrust and intent of this initiative: “Building in urban centers get boost… Council eases the way for projects…Seattle is making is a little easier for developers to build in urban centers.” This DPD-sponsored initiative is focused solely on development and specifically development without the “burden” of any nasty ole environmental review.
This change unquestionably compromises the spirit and intent of the state law and the SEPA Act. What the Council fails to recognize is that SEPA is the prevailing “law of the land” and that the City does not have the authority to restrict or exclude its scope of application — at least in the manner of the proposed, and now approved amendment to the City’s ordinance which was originally designed to implement the state law. The Council and “city officials” argue that the SEPA review of proposed projects duplicates other regulations but what they are overlooking is the fact that SEPA should be, and by law must be, the prevailing and governing directive. “Other regulations” such as DPD design review may only be supplemental to SEPA not a replacement or substitute for SEPA. If there is duplication, which is part of the argument advanced by DPD and one adopted by the Council, then any action that might be necessary to remove or mitigate such duplication should be focused on the “other regulations” and not at SEPA.
Council Chairman Conlin’s statement, as reported in the PI, that the City’s SEPA ordinance was somehow “onerous” and that “onerous requirements for the sake of onerousness are unfair and counterproductive” is especially disturbing. Since when is environmental review “onerous?” Since when is such review “unfair and counterproductive?” Not one shred of real evidence has been offered to prove that the current SEPA ordinance is “onerous” or “unfair” or “counterproductive” or in any way compromising to development in urban centers. The SEPA Act and the City’s SEPA ordinance were put in place for a reason and that reason has not changed. In fact environmental protection is considerably more important and more necessary and more essential that it ever has been. If we as going to meet the objectives of achieving any meaningful environmental improvements in our City and our State then SEPA-type assessments will be critical that progress. This change to the City’s SEPA ordinance is a huge step backward.
This action by the Council should be reviewed for legal sufficiency and should be submitted to the State for such review.
Larry Hettick
[...] a link to a good discussion about it, and here’s a link to one where a couple of commenters are going at one [...]
Larry –
What “environment” in the six specified areas exists that will be adversely affected (that isn’t already covered by critical area or shoreline rules)? I’m not challenging what you are saying, I am just curious.
I will also note that Seattle’s SEPA trigger thresholds are below state minimums for all areas but these six.
The Council does need to be educated that one reason there are few SEPA-driven mitigations is simply DPD does not use this tool as effectively as they could for citizens. Gerry’s point is well-taken in that regard.
Fundamentally, though, the problem goes back to our Court’s interpretations of our State Constitution. They’ve tipped the balance of rights way too far towards people who are just arriving/building in a neighborhood without recognizing the equal rights of those who already live there. Judicial races are not traditionally sexy, but if you want real land use change then paying attention to how judicial candidates think on this issue is important.
David,
Not that there are aren’t other supplemental mechanisms to assist in addressing environmental issues but SEPA is the bedrock of our state’s environmental protections. No other statute provides equivalent notice and participation rights, including appeal. SEPA is designed to require mitigation to meet the requirements of other codes, and to present this information in one understandable process and format for the public, rather than forcing the public to participate in myriad processes, procedures and stacks of municipal codes and local-level legislation. The critical area and shoreline rules you referenced fall into this broad classification.
Furthermore it is well to point out that many of these other mechanisms often do not have authority to incorporate mitigation of impacts absent a clear violation. Only SEPA, for example, requires the consideration of cumulative impacts. Under the other codes, projects are viewed in a piecemeal fashion. Under the threshold determination, when there are multiple projects in a zone that add up to cumulative impacts, the public has the right to full review. This often leads to changes prior to the City imposing conditions. It is a serious error in analysis to only ask what conditions were changed, rather than asking what initial proposals had substantial mitigation added because of the potential for SEPA review and to avoid a threshold determination of significance. None of the other ordinances provide for the public notice that will be lost under this action.
The ONLY reason that the SEPA checklist is not considered a viable and effective tool is because DPD doesn’t want to use it, doesn’t want to enforce it, and obviously considers it a total waste of time. From my experience DPD basically rubber stamps every checklist that passes by and graciously allows applicants to enter most anything as long as it fills up some portion of the space. And the design review process is clearly not a substitute or a replacement — it is not great, not good, and not adequate. It’s developer-friendly, designed and administered to serve the developer in a very close-hold secretive fashion, and certainly not managed in manner conducive or receptive to public input.
Design review is limited, as the name implies, to design. Notice is not afforded in the same manner nor provided for at all during critical pre-application meetings in the backroom at DPD. The architects on the DR boards are not equipped, nor do they have the authority, to deal with cumulative impacts, e.g., to meet our tree canopy goals. Representations by developers are not enforceable, whereas in a SEPA process they can be made into mitigation commitments in order to avoid a threshold determination.
This change to the City’s SEPA ordinance is a huge step backward. It was unwarranted,
unnecessary and misdirected. In the end it has truly compromised the basic principles of the
SEPA Act and has removed a vital and commonly accepted instrument for public involvement in the development process.
Finally, your reference to and assessment of the impact of the Court’s interpretations is right on target. The problem as I see it that judicial races often aren’t races at all – many positions have only one candidate. Further if the races themselves aren’t particularly “sexy” it’s hard to imagine that the issues surrounding land use (even less sexy all accounts) would ever make it to the surface. While my experience in this arena is limited my general observation is that hearing examiners, judges, appellant courts all the way up to and including the WA State Supreme Court are not well versed in land use. If the balance of rights has tipped to far one way or the other it’s unclear to me how it is that we can influence this condition.
Larry
Good comments, Larry! Two return comments and one question…
Let’s make sure to be clear about what changed. Seattle raised SEPA triggers in 6 urban centers to roughly equivalent to state-recommended thresholds. I think that provides some needed perspective to this discussion.
The other comment is you’ll get no argument out of me that the system is broken now. As many reading this are aware our neighborhood has spent 18 months inside the process. We’ve been making lists, however, so we’ve got specific ideas for fixes!
The question is this: I’m not aware of any court that has ruled against a WA private development project due to cumulative impacts when that single project is unrelated to other projects in the area. If you know of precedent in this area, I’d surely be interested in learning about it.
“Cumulative” has been used when grouping SEPA effects on a single project where none of them trip the “significant” threshold individually, but cumulatively trip it. I understand that point as you make it, I’m just not familiar with the other.
To address your point of clarification as to what has changes it seems prudent to examine the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-704) and specifically Part 9 (WAC 197-11-800 through 890) that provides guidance and thresholds for proposals that may be “categorically exempt.” This section also prescribes for “flexible thresholds” that allow counties and cities to raise the exemption levels to the maximum with the caveat that such levels shall be specified in the agency’s SEPA procedures (WAC 197-11-904) and such procedures must be sent to the department of ecology. When newly established exempt levels are adopted they must be supported by local conditions to include zoning or other land use plans or regulations. This governing directive provides for “maximum exempt levels” in order to qualify or exemption.
I submit that the thresholds adopted under Council Bill 116010 exceed the maximum exempt levels allowed under SEPA. Seattle doesn’t get to simply adopt “SEPA triggers” that are “roughly equivalent” to state prescribed thresholds. Such “triggers” shall not exceed the state specified levels and it is my understanding that such levels are not “recommended” but rather are prescriptive and shall not be exceeded. It will be interesting to see if the city complies with the WAC 197-11-904 requirement to send its newly adopted revision of its SEPA ordinance to the state department of ecology. We have recently forwarded a reminder to the city of the need for such a review and have called for a finding of legal sufficiency as prescribed by the above directive.
Our neighborhood has spent considerable time “inside the process” as well. We are certainly interested in your specific ideas for fixes and more importantly your assessment as to whether DPD, the Council and the Mayor are in the mood to even consider any of your ideas. If Council Bill 116010 is any indication I’m extremely concerned that any idea that might run contrary to unrestricted development will be summarily dismissed.
At this juncture I am not in a position to quote any specific rulings that have affected private development due cumulative impacts – I will defer to the land use legal community for such case law review. But I will add that only SEPA requires the consideration of cumulative impacts. Under the other codes, projects are viewed in a piecemeal fashion. Under the threshold determination, when there are multiple projects in a zone that add up to cumulative impacts, the public has the right to full review. This often leads to changes prior to the City imposing conditions and prior to a follow-on court rulings based on cumulative impacts. It is a serious error in analysis to only ask what conditions were changed, rather than asking what initial proposals had substantial mitigation added because of the potential for SEPA review and to avoid a threshold determination of significance. None of the other ordinances provide for the public notice that will be lost under this action. The combined impacts of multiple projects (small and large), or of multiple phases of an individual project, can permanently alter a neighborhood’s character, land use and infrastructure, often in an unintended and/or unforeseen manner. Adequate review of such cumulative impacts can only be done through SEPA’s cumulative impacts policy during the SEPA review of individual projects. Increasing the SEPA threshold limits, as provided for in CB 116010, removes many projects from cumulative impact analysis and mitigation.
I hope I have addressed your comments and look forward to hearing about any others you may have. In addition we would like to hear about your ideas for fixing the system.
Larry Hettick
[...] threshold of which projects in Seattle’s urban villages would require SEPA review generated some comments - and this statement from the Seattle Community Council Federation. EARTH WEEK IRONY: CITY COUNCIL [...]
Leave a Comment