Oh yeah, we're ready.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

The July 1st, 2026 land use and sustainability committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9 40 a.m.

I'm Eddie Lynn, chair of the land use and sustainability committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Council President Algunsworth.

Present.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Present.

Okay.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you all for coming to this Wednesday morning meeting to discuss land use as always.

Thank you to our city clerks, council central staff, mayor's office, and SDCI for helping us prepare for this meeting.

Just to give everybody sort of a quick run of show, we are going to start with public comment on an agenda on the agenda items, which include uh temporary design review.

There will not be any votes on the temporary design review for uh legislation today.

Uh we also have um some appointments that we're gonna do, and then we will do the public hearing on the SEPA bill.

Um, so uh just want to give that run of show.

So we'll start with a public comment on um the agenda, we'll do the public hearing later.

Um colleagues, um, I'm gonna ask that we suspend the rules to limit public comment during on the design review and the agenda to one minute so that we have sufficient time uh later in the agenda during the public hearing to hear all of the speakers, which we have quite a few in person and uh quite a few online.

Um we do have some uh uh hard stop at some point, and so we're hoping to get through all the uh public comments or or the public hearing.

If not, uh it sounds like we might need to uh continue to a future date.

There will be no uh votes today on the CEPA bill, so just want to let people know about that.

Uh okay, so let's get going.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on the agenda or items with the in the purview of the committee.

Any comments relating to item seven council bill one-two one two one five, which is a CEPA bill should be held until the public hearing.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today for public comment?

Currently, we have two in-person speakers signed up and five remote.

Two and five remote.

Okay.

Um again, colleagues.

Um, without objection, I'd like to suspend the rules to limit uh the public comment to one minute each for each speaker.

Hearing no objection, um we will limit it to uh one minute per person.

Um, can you please read the public comment instructions?

Speakers will be called in order in which the registered in person speakers will be called first after which we'll move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will hear a time when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers mics will be muted if they do not, and their comments within the line time to allow us to call the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open.

With the first speaker on the list, that is Julie Holland.

Any any mic, yes, and just please speak directly into the mic.

Thank you so much.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, thank you for this opportunity.

I am Julie Holland, District 7.

Uh, past president of the South Lake Union Community Council and member of the citywide design review reboot coalition.

Coalition members represent a robust cross-section of professionals, residents, and organizations who embrace the current opportunity presented by the new comp plan to get it right.

Or in the words of the new legislation to adopt prompt coordinated and objective review and ensure accountability to applicants and the public.

The coalition is asking for a seat at the table to help ensure efficiency and public participation.

They are not mutually exclusive.

The public voice is an invaluable asset.

It is the buyer that determines and dictates success.

In this case, the buyer is the resident and the lasee.

Let's get it right.

Let's make the comp plan work together as willing partners to perfect Seattle's design review process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Steve.

We need a better Seattle.

And you unfortunately are not reporting bringing that forward at this moment.

Uh as we take a look at citizen participation.

Bad developers, good.

Let's take let's take a look where design review came from.

Design review was part of the compromise that brought about the urban centers.

And all the things the developers want, you have not only kept but given more.

And the citizens, those people, those, those scourges upon developers, we're throwing them out.

And what did we get for it?

Low cost housing.

Look at you one by one pull off the public comments.

The price of housing has gone down.

I say, no, the price of housing is gone up, and the quality has actually gone down.

Neighborhoods suffer.

People suffer.

Thank you.

Uh we will now move on to our remote speakers.

First up is Megan Cruz.

Good morning.

I'm Megan Cruz of District 7 and a member of the Design Review Reboot Coalition.

I'm speaking on the bill to extend the design review moratorium while a new process is put in place.

Design review is the public's lifeline for information about what's being built in their neighborhoods.

Our coalition consists of community groups and individuals across Seattle.

We support increased density, and we believe that design review is critical for its success.

Our goals are simple: create a process that's efficient and accountable to both applicants and the public, give citizen groups like our seat at the advisory table to shape the process, and then update land use codes and design criteria to promote well-designed buildings and livable neighborhoods.

So far, the public has been on the outside looking in with this process.

We all deserve a voice in creating a bigger battle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jeannie Wedding.

Excellent.

Okay.

I'm a professor at the University of Washington, and I live in the Grassworks Park neighborhood area.

I understand that citizens' right to appeal environmental issues in their own neighborhood.

Hold on one second.

Um that uh public comment on the environmental impact statement will be later.

There's a public hearing that you can uh still sign up for.

Um so this is for uh the design review section.

Okay, I I understand the instructions were difficult, so I need to completely go back in and redo them, okay.

We will move on.

You know, I I tried a hard.

Okay, I will try it again.

I thought I was signing up for the issue with the environment.

So what is what is it called?

Thank you.

We're we're we're gonna move on to our next uh that is is there an email that she could send uh to get signed up or maybe connect her with Stephanie.

Yeah, Jean, we'll get you signed up for the other um public hearing, which will be probably uh about 20 minutes.

Thank you.

So we'll okay, thank you.

Uh next up we have Valerie Heidi.

Valerie, please press star six.

Valerie, please press star six.

Okay, we'll come back to you, Valerie.

Uh next up, we have Keith Roerbach.

Uh a reminder that this should be regarding uh design review.

Hello, I heard what you said about uh Council Bill 121215, and I will hold my comments until later.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Valerie, if you are here, please press star six.

Valerie Heidi Moodra.

Hello, this is Valerie Heidi Mudra, 30 year resident in Felltown and a member of the design reboot committee.

I want to express my support for an updated design review that will include the perspective of all stakeholders, developers, architects, neighborhood groups, residents.

Over the years I have participated in design review, and I think the process is important for neighborhoods, the involvement of the community.

The city and our neighborhoods have to live with these projects on a daily basis while the developers move on to other projects.

So it is important that projects be completed without unnecessary delay, put in consideration of things that make a city great, livable, like buildings that provide air and light, walkable sidewalks and green space.

The community brings this perspective.

I respectfully request that we be involved in the redesign of the design review, and would hope that the council would ensure that we have a seat at the table.

Thank you very much for listening to these comments.

Thank you.

We have one additional in-person speaker, and that is Jonathan Warren.

Oh, okay.

Okay, thank you.

That concludes our registered speakers.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um we will now move on to our first items of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda items one through six?

Agenda items 1 through 6 appointments 3536, zoo 3541, appointments of TJ Stuttman, Amir SA, Haley P.

Carter, Patrick W.

Taylor, and reappointments of P.

Jumara Alvarez and Andrew L.

Dannenberg is member of Seattle Planning Commission offer terms to April 15th, 2029 for briefing discussion possible, but you uh will you please introduce yourselves and um yeah.

Good morning.

Thank you very much for having us here this morning.

My name is Vanessa Murdoch.

I'm the executive director of the Seattle Planning Commission.

Seattle Planning Commission is an independent advisory body to this body, City Council, the mayor, and city departments on issues related to housing, land use, and transportation.

I'm pleased to uh turn it over to our four recommended appointees, and then uh for for them to briefly introduce themselves and then happy to answer any questions.

And I'll turn it over to Patrick.

Hi, my name is Patrick Taylor.

Um, long-time Seattle resident.

In my day job, I work in an architecture firm designing all sorts of all forms of housing, and I live in North Beacon Hill with my wife and two young children.

Good morning.

I'm TJ Stuttman.

I'm a resident of Holler Lake in District 5.

My day job, I work right down the street in Council Executive zahalai's budget office.

And uh I'm delighted to uh join the planning commission and work for present and future citizens of Seattle.

Thank you.

We also have two um individuals on the line, I believe Haley and Amir.

Haley, would you please go ahead and introduce yourself?

Hi everyone, I'm Haley Carcher.

Uh I'm an enrollment and planning analyst for Seattle Public Schools and former public school teacher.

Uh proud resident of Columbia City in District 2, and um honored by the opportunity to serve on the Seattle Planning Commission and contribute to making Seattle an affordable place for working families.

Thank you, Haley.

Amir.

Good morning, Chair Glenn and Council members.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here.

My name is Amir Isai.

I'm a civil and environmental engineer with 16 years of experience with leading infrastructure, sustainability and climate initiatives across public and private sectors.

And what I hope to bring to the planning commission is a practical implementation perspective.

Hopefully, Seattle's long-term planning goals with what can actually be built and delivered.

Thank you so much.

And uh thank you, Vanessa.

Thank you to all our um uh applicants for um the planning commission.

Thank you, TJ, Amir, Haley, and Patrick.

Um really um value your your service, your willingness to uh step up into this uh position uh and to serve this critical role for the city.

Um as you you heard probably earlier.

Uh we do have um quite a few um public commenters for a public hearing, and so we are limited in time.

I would love to spend more time uh kind of getting to know you better and for the public to get to know you better and to have questions, and certainly colleagues.

If you do have any questions or comments, uh I welcome them now.

Oh, okay.

Um seeing no questions or comments again.

I really appreciate you being here today uh for our um folks online as well, and really appreciate you stepping up.

Um I move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointments 3536 through 3541.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of appointments.

Any final comments?

I don't see any.

Will the clerk please call the role on the recommendation to confirm the appointments?

Questions, yes.

Councilmember Foster.

Yes, Council President Hongsworth.

Yes, Councilmember Rink.

Yes, Chair Lynn, yes, sure.

There are five votes in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, wonderful.

The motion carries the committee recommendation that the council confirm the appointments will be sent to the July 7th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Congratulations and thank you again uh to both our folks in person and online.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we open that.

Yes, we will now move on to our fourth item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item seven?

Oh, six two, twenty-five oh five six eight oh of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify processes for council land use decisions for public hearing briefing and discussion.

Okay, as presiding officer, I am now opening the public hearing on council bill one two one two one five uh regarding the council land use decisions legislation.

Um clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

Do I have it?

I have the sheets okay.

Let's see.

We have um one forty.

44.

61.

Looks like we have approximately 61 in person.

Do we know how many we have online?

We have roughly 38 online.

Thirty-eight online.

Okay.

Um so each speaker will be provided um one minute.

So hopefully we will have time to hear everybody this morning.

Really appreciate um everyone coming here this morning um for all the um advocacy and interest in this important uh legislation.

We've also gotten a number of emails and uh heard from um folks in other ways as well.

Um there's a lot more that I would uh like to say, but I think it's important that we hear from you.

Um so I'd like to just move on and hear directly.

Um so with that, let's see.

Um clerk, I'll hand this over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called in the order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of this public hearing.

The same public comment comment rules apply to this public hearing, except that there will be two minutes of public comment.

A 10-second time will be your notice that it's time to wrap up comments.

Speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time public comment related to council bill 121215.

The council land use decisions legislation is only being accepted at this public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by saying their name.

We'll proceed with in-person speakers first and then uh with our remote commenters.

Our first commenter is Alicia Ruiz.

We do one minute, correct?

One minute.

What was two minutes?

Okay.

It has to be two.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

So two minutes.

Um, so we'll see if we can get through everybody.

We have quite a few.

Um, if you are able to limit your comments um to less than two minutes, that would be greatly appreciated.

Um, thank you.

Let's proceed.

Good morning, Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

My name is Alicia Ruiz.

Representing Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King County, and Seattle, King, and Kiditas Counties.

And I'm here again in support of Council Bill 121215.

To put it simply, this bill closes closes a loophole that costs Seattle time.

It doesn't have.

State law sets firm deadlines for updating our land use code, but administrative SIPA appeals of legislative actions have repeatedly pushed those timelines back.

This is a layer of review state law never required in the first place.

Nothing about environmental protection changes here, and full CEPA review stays exactly as rigorous as it is today.

What goes away is a second redundant appeal step that other major cities in our region, including Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett, have already eliminated without incident.

We ask you to think about what a few months of delay actually means on the ground.

It means a family that qualified for an affordable home today is still waiting next spring.

It means a construction timeline slips into a new fiscal year, and financing has to be renegotiated.

These aren't abstract costs.

They are the consequences of necessary of unnecessary delay that lands on the backs of the people we serve every day.

Habitat urges this committee to pass council bill one-two one two-one five without delay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Sean Newton, followed by Woody Wheeler, Jason Weil, Ken Davis, and Riley Avron.

Good morning, Chair Lynn and members of the land use and sustainability committee.

Uh my name is Sean.

I'm a Seattle resident and a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity.

Um I'm here to urge you to pass CB 121215 out of committee and send it to the full council.

This bill is a common sense procedural reform.

It does not roll back environmental protections nor public process.

Environmental review remains intact.

What it does do is remove a self-imposed administrative appeal process for legislative land use decisions that state law does not require, and that has added months of delay to needed housing policy updates.

For families partnering with habitat, every delay matters.

Waiting longer for housing means staying longer in unstable or unaffordable situations.

Personally speaking, as someone hoping to start a family in this city, I want my kids to grow up in Seattle believing they can become the teachers, nurses, or public servants that we need while actually affording to live here rather than being priced out.

Redundant process does not build homes, and it does not improve environmental outcomes.

Seattle should join King County, King County, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett in streamlining these legislative CEPA decisions.

Please pass CB 121215 to the full council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Woody Wheeler followed by Jason Ken and Riley.

Hello, I'm Woody Wheeler.

I have a small business called conservation catalyst.

I'm a guide, an author.

I'm a nature person.

You might ask me to leave right now.

But this bill would create an end run around a vital democratic process that protects our environment.

There is no need for it.

Appeals are rare, averaging just 2.7 per year, with less than one housing related appeal annually over the past 10 years.

Meanwhile, Seattle's natural heritage is shrinking.

More than 7,000 trees have been removed since 2023.

That was the year the tree ordinance went into effect.

Seattle ranks fifth, shamefully, in the nation for urban heat islands, even though we're the 18th largest city.

We can do better.

400 people died during the June 2021 heat wave in King County.

Let's not forget that.

That's recent history.

Mayor Michelle Burdeaux of a city west of Montreal, Canada, recently established a very strong tree ordinance, which I wish we had.

Here's what he said.

When it comes to fighting climate change, our biggest ally is trees.

It is time for Seattle to make this realization.

Vote no on this bill, pursue instead affordable housing.

I support that personally through my money.

I do volunteer bird walks for low-income housing.

I believe it.

But that targeted is what we need, not just housing that's mostly marketplace housing.

Let's make that clear.

Vote no on this bill, pursue instead affordable housing while protecting the trees that make our city healthier, cooler, and more.

We can do this.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jason followed by Ken Riley, Cindy Shuttler, and Sarah Lapas.

Hi, good morning, Council members.

Uh, my name is Jason Weil.

I am a homeowner and resident, District 6.

Um, and I am here in favor of CB 121215.

This bill would streamline the approval of affordable housing, which is urgently needed in the city.

Seattle declared a state of emergency about homelessness 13 years ago, and unfortunately, our homeless population continues to rise to record levels.

This is not acceptable.

What's also not acceptable is bad faith delays of vitally needed affordable housing.

Time consuming appeals delay creation of housing for our neediest neighbors, and I am really grateful to city council for reducing the overhead to create the affordable housing that our city needs.

Thank you, and I encourage you to approve this bill.

Thank you.

Followed by Riley.

You can't.

I thought I heard my name.

Okay.

Hi.

I've lived in Seattle uh area for around 30 years in the Green Lake area, and I'm opposed to this bill.

I want to ask you, have you ever seen the government make a mistake?

Have you ever seen developers make a mistake?

Have you ever made a mistake?

This bill will remove the ability of the people to point this out before you make the mistakes.

When you fast-track this development, you're fast tracking mistakes.

We uh you I look at Ballard.

Ballard's a disaster, it's an environmental disaster.

And green, like myself, what's happened over in the Roosevelt area has raised the temperature.

As the previous speaker said, the heat island is just dramatic in Seattle.

We need to reverse this.

We need trees.

We need to be able to look at these developments and challenge them if they need challenging.

The only reason I can see that you want to do this is to increase developers' profits.

Because development's going to come.

We can do it right or we can do it wrong.

I lived in the New York City area.

I don't move I moved from the East Coast to here to get away from that.

And when I see Seattle changing into something that resembles New York City, it's very sad to see that bird going in that direction.

So I hope you vote against this policy.

Thank you.

Next up we have Riley followed by Sandy Shuttler, Sarah Lapis, and Martha Bashir.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Riley from West Seattle.

I want to first recognize that this form of public comments profoundly unrepresentative and biased towards people like me who are able to spend their weekday morning here.

That said, I urge you to pass this bill.

We don't let one person waste months on pointless process when it comes to the budget or the police contract or World Cup preparations.

But when it comes to allowing more homes, we do.

To the worker forced to choose between groceries and rent, to the person on our streets evicted and with nowhere to go, to the family who finally throws in the towel and moves somewhere they can actually afford.

We say to them, you can wait another six months while we tow our thumbs, right?

Because that's all these appeals are a waste of time, a way to run down the clock.

Building more homes in our cities is unequivocally good for the environment.

Recognizing this, the state has already permanently eliminated these appeals, as of King County, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett.

As further evidence, Seattle's appeal process has never resulted in a substantive change to the EIS, much less to the actual plan the AIS analyzes.

The status quo is not neutral, and wasting time to preserve it is unacceptable.

Please pass this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Yes, I'm Sandy Shetler with Tree Action Seattle.

Messaging on this bill claims that SEPA appeals are redundant because I quote, Seattle's a national leader in environmental protection and coexistence between humans and the beautiful nature that surrounds us.

But the data tells a different story.

Our error is worse.

The EPA reports that our fine particle pollution, not from wildfires, jumped over 17% in the last decade, and it's 10% higher than similar sized cities.

We're overheating.

Climate central ranks us fifth in the nation for urban heat islands.

Our trees are disappearing.

City data shows that we lost over 7,000 trees in 2.5 years.

Most of them had trunks over a foot in diameter.

This shows that this is not the time to be patting ourselves on the back and eliminating the public's oversight of the environment.

We need to fix what's broken.

Please reject 1212 15.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sandy.

Yep.

Hi.

Hi, Council.

I'm Sarah.

Um, SPS parent, D6 resident, and project director for the Robert Eagle Staff Middle School Mini Forest.

And I'm here to strongly urge you to reject CB121215.

The EIS for the COM plan wrongly assumes that replacing our healthy mature trees with new trees is equivalent.

This is a serious and dangerous error.

It takes four decades for saplings to achieve similar cooling benefits that mature trees provide today.

Low canopy Seattle neighborhoods are already 20 plus degrees warmer than canopied neighborhoods on hot days.

That's the difference between life and death in a heat wave.

New plantings don't combat urban heat island impacts and increasingly can't survive them.

It was citizen review that flagged this egregious error in the EIS.

It's us, your constituents, who are your allies in this process, flagging dangerous mistakes like this one before they become entrenched in law.

This bill would remove that critical check and further amplify the already outsized influence of lobbyists who advocate for policies that benefit their bottom line at the expense of the environment and the people who live here.

Please reject CB 121215.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

Next up, we have Martha Bashir, followed by Suzanne Grant, Steve Rubstello, and Kathy Kirkhoff.

Yes, hello.

Good morning, good afternoon.

What is it?

Still morning.

Yeah.

The rationale behind this one to 1215, an amendment that would eliminate environmental appeals on all city land use legislation and any city building project is like Trump's claims about voter fraud, an exercise in deception.

Trump's crusade isn't about the nation's election procedures.

It's about disenfranchising voters.

In this case, CB 121215 isn't about reform.

It's about taking away the one avenue ordinary people have to address critical environmental issues the city is ignoring.

The environmental impacts of the comp plan are enormous.

Reduced heat islands because of clear-cutting thousands and thousands of mature trees, upzoning neighborhoods across Seattle that have already absorbed generations of disinvestment and displacement, and thinking market housing will somehow appear.

Worsened stormwater runoff because of the loss of mature trees and subsequent polluted waters for the region's dwindling iconic southern resident orcas.

Add rules that allow 90% hard spake hardscape coverage on residential lots with no setbacks, and anyone longing for a livable city where density coexists with the natural environment can kiss that dream.

Oh goodbye.

The sponsor of the amendment, Eddie Lynn, alleges that appeals cost time and money, but environmental appeals are uncommon.

In fact, Seattle averages just under three appeals per year, with only eight of the 27 total appeals over the past decade involving housing.

Yes, many Washington state jurisdictions allow citizen environmental appeals.

Lynn correctly notes that Tacoma Everett and Bellevue do not, but Spokane, Kent, Olympia, Vancouver, Snohomes, and Pierce counties do.

I urge you to not approve Council 121215.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Suzanne Grant.

Don't at all we seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone.

How many of you have witnessed the dismembering of a hundred year old tree as its limbs crash to the ground to make way for a parking space or yet another million dollar house that could have been redesigned?

SDCI and you, our paid city council members, have not done enough to protect our natural resources.

Our trees, mature trees, our orca.

You need volunteer citizens to help to ask about environmental impacts, fire safety, utility, and traffic impact, etc.

Banning appeals erases accountability.

We did not elect you to take away the voice of the people.

Stripping the most accessible community review mechanism removes the last formal check available to residents, especially those with the least political power.

Appeals give residents at residents an independent review before environmental assumptions are locked into law and before trees are removed or projects begin.

Please retain the current requirement that all council originated bills have a director's report.

I am standing up for our right to protect.

Thank you.

Next up, C.

So followed by Kathy Kirchhoff, Frida Worlett, Orla Kinkanen and Kim.

We still need a better Seattle.

First two speakers for this public hearing were the only ones that were not shooed downstairs to get in line.

And of course, they spoke for.

Thank you, Steve.

Next up, we have Kathy Kirkhoff.

Hi.

I want you to reject CB1 to 12.

Well, anyway, what?

Bill 1212 1-5.

Um, I want us to be able to have a seat at the table.

This is the last way that we can.

You can see that there has not been that many times that it's been enacted.

As a person who grew up in Seattle, I understand how much the environment has changed.

The Olympic mountains have less snow on them in the winter than they used to have in the summer.

Urban heat is getting much higher.

I live in Ballard.

I'm about seven blocks from the library.

We're talking about you building a city that provides for people, you know, a place to live, but also a place to survive.

If you create a city that is not survivable in heat, you will not save the forest and the lands out there.

People will leave because they want to survive.

You saw that during COVID.

The people who had the means got the hell out of town.

You know, so don't create a city where the poor are gonna die.

Um this is drastic.

A huge seat at the table.

Please give the rest of us a seat at the next up.

We have Frida Burlett.

Sarah.

Followed by Orla, Kim, Hans, and Augustine.

Apologies, I didn't hear you the first time or didn't understand you.

I apologize for that.

So my name is Fritz Wallett.

Um I am a uh here homeowner in Seattle, and uh my house in the revenue area has two heritage trees, and they are now undergoing a very expensive process to put a conservation easement on them to uh keep developers from cutting, excuse me, cutting them down.

So anyway, um, and I'm here to course to vote no or to urge you to vote no on council members Lynn's uh Lynn's proposal.

Um it seems to me that initially uh this is an overreaction to Jennifer Godfrey's successful lawsuit against the city, and that's a ridiculous reason to take away a right.

As a matter of fact, during the 18 years I was in the city attorney's office, we didn't take away rights as far as I know.

We either preserved them or we expanded them.

Um in the other, leave it to the other Washington to take it or take away rights, and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

So Jennifer Godfrey's lawsuit went all the way to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals ruled against the city and told us clearly that we were misinterpreting the statute, the requirements of CEPA, and that we had to um equate and prioritize along with housing um salmon, trees, and water.

So what's wrong with that?

That's a message we got, and we should do it.

And finally, yesterday's Times nailed it.

Come on, folks, you all read it.

The Times just nailed it, and there's not much.

The delay is mostly something of a figment of a particular council member's imagination.

Vote no on the amendment.

Thank you.

Next, Orla followed by Kim Hans and Augustine.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Orlec and Cannon.

I'm asking the council to oppose 1212 15.

The bill is vague and does not address how removing the environmental appeal process will actually protect our environment.

And sadly, the bill is even derogatory in tone, reminiscent of the Trump administration.

There is no weaponization at hand.

You have concerned citizens who are volunteering a democratic right.

Banning appeals removes accountability and muzzles the public, the constituents you were elected to serve.

Good decisions depend on good information.

We need checks and balances.

The hearing examiner appeal provides the only independent and affordable check on the environmental review process before legislation is adopted.

As the state court of appeals ruled in the ORCA appeal.

And on that note, the ORCA appeals is backed by 12 leading environmental organizations in the city and 2500 concerned citizens.

An appeal that could have been avoided if city staff had addressed the environmental concerns in the 10 months leading up to the filing.

As for reference on the bill of endless appeals, most appeals are thrown out as mentioned earlier, and on average, over the past decade, there have been 2.7 per year.

I do indeed believe in affordable housing and density, but eliminating a public right is a drastic step that does not solve the problem at hand.

Please reject 121215.

Thank you.

Today I'm urging the council to vote no on Council Bill 121215.

It is critical that as we develop the city of Seattle, we keep this opportunity to protect the environment by allowing a system of checks and balances that ensures that human mistakes made in analyzing the data and the environmental impact statements are not voted into law without allowing further independent review.

The answer is not to eliminate the tree the appeal process.

The focus needs to be on refining the environmental impact review process to ensure accurate assessment of our most valuable environmental assets.

And if and when mistakes are made, an efficient hearing examiner process which allows for public oversight to further investigate and protect these most invaluable and critical environmental resources.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Hans followed by Augustine Caroline Villanova and Inn Sims.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Hans.

I'm 17 years old.

I go to Bishop Blanchett High School over in Wallingford.

Uh as I watch Trump take away my rights at a ridiculous pace.

It is scary to see a Seattle City Council member trying to take away my rights as a young person to be able to file an environmental appeal on my own.

My democratic right to due process.

When my right is taken by the generation before me, think about how my generation will think of you.

Reject CB 121215.

Thank you.

My name is Augustine DiPietro.

I'm 16 years old and I live in Georgetown, which is one of the biggest heat islands in all of Seattle.

Please do not take away my right for environmental appeals.

That is, is almost our my only way to affect my community.

Even today, just coming here, I just see one of the largest trees and the only shade producers in my entire neighborhood be ripped out.

And if this appeal process is just is gone rid of, it will take away my right to support my community.

Um you are saying that this bill will protect the climate, and that is not true and is misleading the public.

Please reject this bill.

Thank you.

Next move, Caroline.

Thank you, Council members, for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Caroline Villanova, and I'm the director of government relations for Seattle Parks Foundation.

We support addressing Seattle's housing needs, but we do not believe that CB 121215 is the right approach.

As an organization focused on parks and public spaces, we are concerned about the bill's broader impacts on building a livable climate resilient city.

Type 5 decisions also apply to park-related projects where strong environmental review and public process are essential.

The bill removes the neutral independent checkpoint on environmental review before legislation is adopted, which would reduce transparency and risk flawed analysis.

Appeals are infrequent, like we've heard, and public comments alone are really not enough.

Improving the hearing examiner process would be a better solution.

Adequate and comprehensive environmental analysis processes, including CEPA, are critical for those who have lived here since time immemorial.

Under a thorough and meaningful environmental review process, sovereign tribal governments in the region are included to make sure that there aren't adverse impacts to irreplaceable cultural resources, including those within cities parks.

Seattle's growth must really not come at the cost of our environmental and tribal cultural resources.

We urge council to reconsider this bill and pursue a stronger path forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ann Sims followed by Jessica Dixon, Steve Zemke, Laura Livingston, and Andrew Crocker.

Hello, Council.

I am a member of the city speaking to you against this proposal.

We are standing on unsuceded land of the Duamish.

We are colonizers, and I'm trying to listen to their wisdom.

If we don't understand that we are part of this earth, that all the trees, all the green spaces that we have left, and we're in the fourth year of drought.

If you look around all our street cities' trees, garden trees are dying.

If we don't understand that that is our body, then the heartscape, the building are not gonna rescue us.

We will collapse, and the City of Seattle needs to take a completely new stand and a new approach to dealing with what is happening in the world.

We cannot continue as we have.

What Seattle has done, I can see with my own eyes.

The little bit of housing that people can afford is on streets that aren't really going to be contested.

They're already treeless and barren.

What's being built is for rich people.

It's ugly.

There's no design review, and all of these houses in 20 years will be in a landfill, which is also not sustainable.

So I ask you, listen to the elders.

Listen to the people that should be here and should teach you and all of us how to steward land.

What is happening here is sad and is the wrong direction in so many ways.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Next up, Jessica Dixon.

Hi, and my name is Jean Bateman, and I'm here to oppose this bill too.

I'm so sorry.

Uh Jessica Dixon is up next.

Pardon me.

Sorry, sorry.

Uh, we have Jessica Dixon up next.

Hi, I'm Jessica Dixon.

Um, I'm a uh resident of District 6 of Greenwood, and thank you so much for being here today.

Um, I'm calling on the city council to reject Council Bill 121215 and to preserve the public's right to challenge land use decisions under CEPA that affect the air, water, and overall health and well-being of the residents of our city.

The appeal process is challenging.

It's definitely not something anyone enters into lightly, but it provides relatively low-cost access for the average citizen to an expert forum.

In the end, with so much at stake, Seattle's communities deserve accountability when it comes to major land use decisions, not empty promises and dismissiveness.

Vote no on Council Bill 121215.

Thank you.

Next up we have Steve Zemke, followed by Laura Livingston, Andrew Crocker, and Pamela Adams.

My name is Steve Zemke.

I'm speaking on behalf of Tree Pack and Friends of Seattle's urban forest.

About 20 years ago, I was the campaign director for Initiative 547, which was the Keep Washington Livable Initiative, which was the precursor to the bill passed by the legislature the next year to put the comprehensive plan in place in our state.

Would note that, in terms of the current comprehensive plan, the delays seem to be coming more from your process, City Council, and Mayor being a year behind schedule.

And that is not at all being issued here in terms of what you're dealing with.

I urge that you retain the current requirement that all council originated bills have a director's report.

Council Bill 1212 would eliminate this requirement for council land use legislation while continuing it for the mayor's office.

Directors' reports for comprehensive plans, comprehensive plan amendments, land use legislation.

Need to continue to be mandatory for both the council and the mayor's office.

There should be no difference between the council and the mayor in terms of this requirement.

We need to ensure that departments have to comply with the proposed legislation, review it, and they have their input.

If it is a problem having to defend it, that's a problem for the bill itself.

Do the do the director's reports for both.

Secondly, urge that you exit expedite and reform rather than eliminate the current hearing examiner process regarding comprehensive plans, EIS, comprehensive plan amendments, land use appeals, etc.

Lengthy delays that are involved in building more housing.

Options, move the appeals automatically to the front of the line to be resolved.

Put others on delay if this is so important.

Say it needs to be dealt with first by the hearing examiner.

Second, require that all appeals, amendments, et cetera, be resolved within a short period of time, either 30 days, 60 days, whatever.

You can do this, amend it rather than repeal it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think I'm next.

Yes, Laura.

Laura, yes.

I'm Laura Livingston, and I'm a resident of Crown Hill.

I'm urging a no vote.

I'm a researcher for Save Crown Hill Cemetery.

It's a group of neighbors and lineal descendants working to stave off residential development in the 123-year-old historic urban graveyard established in 1903 by the city of Ballard.

Even after providing the legal documents demonstrating cemetery dedication, we're still in full force in the southwest corner, that were handed to me by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and given over to SDCI during the public comment.

SDCI kept the short plat application moving forward.

Only when we alerted state archaeologists about imminent desecration of this land did SDCI issue a correction.

I wonder what would have happened if we have found this information after the application was approved.

What avenues we would have had?

And while this may be a tangential example, it demonstrates that public participation in land use decisions is difficult enough.

Please do not remove this important avenue for appeals when oversight fails.

I did email additional details of this example to the council, and I urge you to vote no.

Thank you.

Next up will be Andrew Crocker, followed by Pamela Adams, Josh Friedman, Jeff Paul, and Jean Beateman.

Thank you, Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

My name is Andrew Crocker.

I'm from D2, and I'm speaking in favor of 121215.

We've heard today that the bill opens a one-way path to environmental destruction, or that it's tyranny in action.

Neither claim is true.

The environmental review process still happens and the EIS still gets written.

What the bill does is close an administrative loophole that most jurisdictions in Washington don't even offer.

Bellevue doesn't, Tacoma doesn't, King County doesn't.

Seattle is the outlier, and we're seeing the cost of that.

The comp plan is now in its fifth year with phase two push to 2027 because of only two lawsuits.

Folks hear me from this is democracy in action.

I believe it's the opposite.

A process where anyone with an attorney can stall legislation affecting 800,000 people, is neither democratically nor environmentally sound.

Every year we delay dense housing near transit is a year that we push families into longer commutes, longer drives, more roads, and more sprawl.

The sprawl is what is adding to our PM 2.5 pollution, our heat islands.

It's threatening our trees, our water, and yes, the orcas.

Advance this bill and let our democratically elected council get back to planning the city's future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Pamela Adams.

Hey, good afternoon.

I'm Pamela Adams, aka the freelance beaver detective of Seattle.

And um, for beavers may chew down trees, but uh Seattle shouldn't shoot through due process.

For the past several years, I've been um spending a lot of time documenting urban wildlife, beavers, coyotes, and whatnot, especially in Longfellow Creek and seeing the return of wild coho salmon.

So nature is coming back to our city.

And then a few years ago, since I'm new here, um, four years, I discovered beavers were one of Seattle's most important watershed eco-engineers, um, was not was missing on the uh checklist for wildlife with developers.

And I called in at a meeting and that I was told it was simply an oversight.

And so oversights do happen.

And that's exactly why you know we need a public appeals and independent environmental review.

I mean, this is not a new the appeals process is not new.

It's been part of Seattle's um normal feature for generations.

So I've heard people say that the process only works for wealthy residents and who can afford lawyers, and if that's true, let's reform the process and make it more accessible to ordinary people.

Because eliminating the hearing examiner appeal does not create more access, so removes access.

Um developers have lobbyists and private meetings, trees, salmon, wetlands, watersheds depend on ordinary citizens to speak for them.

And I say just please don't go forward with um CB121215.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pamela.

Next up we have Josh Friedman, followed by Jeff Paul and Gene Bateman.

Council members, for the record, I am Josh Friedman, lifelong Seattleite, living in the Seward Park neighborhood of District 2.

Uh, despite rude assertions that have been made by some commenters at past meetings, I am not being paid by anyone to be here.

Housing delayed is housing denied.

Despite what some conservative media outlets will tell you, nobody is getting rid of SEPA.

SEPA is the state environmental policy act.

It is a state law.

We are not currently in Olympia.

This body cannot remove state law.

Allowing redundant appeal processes also does not save the environment.

Endless appeals are very profitable for land use lawyers, but they don't help give the city any housing.

Redundant appeal processes also don't save orcas or beavers.

Any scientists will tell you that orcas need cars off the road to save their food chains from automotive runoff.

Allowing more housing in our urban areas gets those cars off the road.

The orcas do not care about whether our most privileged neighborhoods remain the way they always have looked, or whether those privileged neighborhoods are instead asked to make some changes in order to make their resources available to some new people.

In American politics and economy, it is natural for people who have a moat around their little slice of heaven to try to keep that moat wide and deep.

That rage is a rational economic response by individuals, but that doesn't mean it is the right policy position for our community.

Thank you for doing the right thing with this legislation.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jeff Paul, followed by Gene Bateman, Alex Lofton, and Judy Acolytis.

Hello, counsel.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Um my name is Jeff Paul.

I'm the co-executive director of House Our Neighbors and a renter in D3.

I'm here to speak in favor of this legislation.

And honestly, I'm here today because I'm remarkably frustrated.

Um I am an environmentalist.

It's what I've done my entire life.

It's how I got into politics.

Um and I'm also an environmentalist who is young enough to be acutely aware uh and get to look forward to climate collapse happening within my lifetime.

At the core of my politics is that acute awareness that the world will be uninhabitable for billions of people, meaning millions of people will die within my lifetime without drastic action.

According to every environmental scientist in the world, we have to massively reduce the amount of time that people spend driving in cars.

They destroy our atmosphere, their tires and breaks pollute our waters.

Seattle is just one city, but we must do our part to move with urgency.

The only way that we can do that is build densely.

Public transit only works when people have dense cities.

It's the most important single drawdown that we can do.

And we needed to start five decades ago.

Honestly, this legislation doesn't even come close to enabling the city to move forward with the urgency needed.

The Seattle process will continue, and it will still take years for us to make a decision to add a quarter of the density that's required.

And I'm just so frustrated that we're here talking about how, yeah, just how much it's so important that one person can stop the entire city from making decisions about what is going to happen with our land use and our ability to meaningfully address the climate crisis.

That is like the reason why I'm not having kids.

Like, this is so insane.

Sorry.

Please take the environmental crisis seriously.

Please take the housing crisis seriously.

That is killing people every single day and pass this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello again.

I'm Jean Bateman, and I'm here to oppose this legislation one, two, one two, one five.

I'm a business owner.

Uh I'm a property owner.

I've been a resident in the downtown commercial core for 35 years.

I support increased housing.

In developing policies, however, here with the city, it is critical to establish a way to officially include all voices.

One element at the heart of these questions, I came here originally to talk to design review.

Um I was sad I couldn't comment on this one, so I'm happy to be here commenting on this one as well.

But one of the elements at the center of this is what can one person, one property owner, build and design and remove within the context of other property owners in the neighborhood in the city and the region.

Without a seat at the table, both in design and at this point, in appeal, the city is saying, please buy a small business here, please buy a home here, please invest, please pay taxes.

And once you have done this, you will have no voice in what happens next.

Please take time to oppose this bill and to bring a seat at the table in design review.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alex Lofton, followed by Judy Acolytis, Nikki Yukon, and Nathaniel Howard.

Thank you, Chairland and Council members.

My name is Alex Lofton, a proud resident of the CD in District 3 up here today as a part of our growing community of residents with for Seattle.

I urge you to pass Council Bill 121215.

Man, sitting here today, I'm overcome by how much change weighs on all of us.

The Seattle area I grew up in is not the Seattle of today or the one that's coming tomorrow.

We have and will and should continue to be the welcoming place for anyone who wants or needs to live here, especially in this era of an increasingly threatening federal administration, where our fellow citizens elsewhere have nowhere else to go.

All of us in this room are at one point got at one point got the privilege to live here.

A privilege that we must share.

And to do so requires us to continue to adapt to the changes we are all grappling with.

I've spent the better part of my professional life tearing my non existent hair, trying to hair out, trying to make housing more accessible and expensive cities, especially ours.

One reflection from my work is that so much of what stands in our way is out of our hands.

But one thing that's squarely in our hands is how we build, whether our process is thoughtful and efficient or just redundant.

This bill removes one such step.

Over 10 years, these appeals delayed decisions by months and change the outcome twice.

Every environmental protection stays in place.

We can build housing and protect the environment.

Delay housing pushes outside pushes people outside our urban settings and forces them to drive.

Let's stop losing homes to the clock.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Judy.

Hi, good morning.

The city's own data shows that there are only 2.8 of these appeals per year.

Councilperson Lynn, you claim this bill will stop the endless lawsuits and appeals.

As a librarian and a teacher who teaches facts, your claims are demonstrably false.

You are pushing this in the name of delaying affordable housing, which is false.

This bill denies affordable access and a voice to environmental appeals by ordinary people, like my kids.

And Snowhomish County, Pierce County, Kent, Spokane, Olympia, and Vancouver maintain this access to appeals.

Seattle is not an outlier as you purport it to be.

It is part of a broad Washington consensus that community review of environmental decisions matters.

In my opinion, this bill is a huge distraction from real pro-environmental work.

I believe in density and affordable middle housing.

But this bill should not be a scapegoat for that.

Please reject CB 121215.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Next up we have Nikki, and I'm so sorry about your last name.

Yonko.

Followed by Nathaniel Howard, Gene Trent, and Amanda Lynn.

So I just want to urge the council to vote no on CB 121215.

This bill is an outrageous grab for power by I don't know, developers, industry who are only intent on maximizing their profits.

You should note vote no for the following reasons.

The bill will make it expensive and virtually impossible for the average Seattle resident to appeal an inadequate EIS.

If you don't want appeals, then have an adequate EIS.

The director's report for CB 121215 documents, as the previous uh speaker said, 28 appeals in 10 years.

This is not an avalanche of appeals.

Um, as Eddie Lynn has said uh that Seattle is an outlier.

I work for Pierce County.

I'm an environmental reviewer, and I can tell you we have appeals.

We have SEPA appeals.

Um, so Seattle's drive for density should not usurp good government and the ability of the average person to help forge the future of their city.

It is ironic that while we are celebrating the 250th year of a nascent democracy, Seattle is trying to squelch the ability of its residents to hold their government accountable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, council members.

Trying to make this work for me.

Uh hey, my name is Nate.

Um, 33 years old.

I live in a dense area of Capitol Hill.

Um, I rode my bike here.

If I didn't do that, I probably would have taken the G.

Uh, just a virtue signal for a sec.

Uh the council's land use committee report shows that less than three SIPA appeals are filed in a year on average.

The 2025 hearing examiner's report showed CEPA appeals as a small fraction of the total caseload.

Uh, additionally, removing citizens' rights to appeal through CEPA would shift that forum to the Growth Management Hearings Board or Superior Court.

Uh, both of which are prohibitively expensive as processes, especially considering that districts two and three, where most density-driven canopy loss has occurred, are also the lowest income in the city.

Removing citizens' rights to appeal environmental impact statements through CEPA is therefore disenfranchisement.

Moreover, it's unnecessary.

Seattle was third in the nation for new housing development from 2010 to 2020.

And this has persisted in the six years since.

I should also mention I moved here in 2018.

Uh, like I said, I'm a renter.

The only way I can afford to live in my Capitol Hill apartment uh is by sharing it with my partner.

Um, I'm happy to do that, but you know, it's sort of an obligation as well as a decision.

Lastly, the city has had at least 38 private meetings with the developer lobby this year alone.

Taken together, these facts paint a picture of a measure intended to grease the wheels for developers at the expense of the concerns and rights of citizens.

I would ask you, please to vote no on CB121215.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Gene Trent and Amanda.

I think you said Gene Trent, right?

Yes, hi.

Good morning.

Thank you for hearing me.

I can't do any better than all these people are doing.

What I find in common is almost everybody is an environmentalist.

Everybody wants this city to stay as clean and healthy as it is that can be.

But I'm afraid there's some confusion about what interrupts that process.

I came here 50, 60 years ago, really getting older.

And I came here because this city was much healthier and more beautiful than where I came from in Southern California.

And I noticed that all these tourists that are in town right now, when they're interviewed, they just interviewed all over the place.

They don't say, wow, this is a really exciting city.

It's got great activity and big buildings.

They're saying it's beautiful.

And I think that that's why we're here.

And so everybody here cares about that.

I understand.

But I think this bill, one two one two one five, which I oppose, is somehow showing this false equivalence that somehow or other, by people being involved in the process, being a patriots like me, I think I'm a patriot.

I'm not a NIMBY.

I sold my house and gave the money to my kids to buy houses.

So I I think that this is a false choice.

I think this can be done, keeping citizens involved and keeping the beautiful city that we need and making it possible for people to live here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, council members.

My name is Amanda Lynn.

I'm an organizer with House Our Neighbors and a Citizen in Capitol Hill.

Over the past several months, I've worked alongside hundreds of Seattle residents who are advocating for a comprehensive plan that creates a thriving green city.

Many of those people, most of those people do not have the luxury of time off work to be here or the privilege of knowing how to access these spaces.

If you knew me personally, you would know that I come from tree protectors, people who chain themselves to trees to save them.

Environmental protections are not abstract for me.

And neither are the very real outcomes of these unnecessary delays on densifying our city.

Look, I'm no champion of private development, but that's not who is most impacted by these redundant appeals.

It's folks like Habitat for Humanity, our community land trusts, and our affordable housing developers that are managing complex capital stacks and navigating immensely complex bureaucracies already.

And it also affects the orcas, who will continue to suffer from years of sprawl.

Administrative CIPA appeals on legislative land use decisions don't strengthen environmental protections or magically save the orcas.

Instead, they become weaponized to delay policies that have already gone through extensive public review and environmental analysis.

And again, they add to that ongoing sprawl, harming the orcas instead.

While appeals may be small in number, they are massive in delay.

Seattle is in a housing crisis.

Every month we delay housing means higher rents, longer commutes, and more neighbors pushed into that sprawl.

Ensure future housing plans can't be held up by the same procedural loophole.

I urge you to support this legislation so we can spend less time rehashing good policy and more time building the home Seattle desperately needs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jennifer Godfrey, followed by Dave Gloger, Kathy Minstew, Susan Fedor, and Brendan Derbladder.

Thank you.

So I would like to suggest that we streamline before banning.

I am not paid to be here before filing the Orca appeal.

I attended 10 months of public meetings to correct the errors in the environmental impact statement regarding clean water, endangered species, and tree hydrology losses.

None were corrected.

I would have much rather have you resolved these before appeal.

If the city fails to fix mistakes through public comment, the predecision appeal makes the most logistic and accessible sense versus waiting until after the damage is done.

The process can be shortened.

We watched Trump gut NOAA when he didn't like climate science.

In the Court of Appeals, the city admits they don't want any process to be sure that the city has accurate info in the EIS.

The state asked, why not?

Streamline before eliminating.

Other hearing examiner processes done in a large quantity of Washington cities, most Washington cities are completed in under 60 days.

How many council members had time to read the thousands page long environmental impact statement?

Or the stormwater code.

There's so much to do, it makes sense.

You can't analyze it all and need those directors' reports to be provided and unbiased.

We've deregulated the comp plan, the stormwater code while gutting the enforcement branch.

How does that make sense?

The city filed to delay three times in the Court of Appeals, including right now.

This is the 30th day when they could have come back and said, okay, on 27 days ago, and expedited this process.

The choice to wait until 2027 was made by the city based on their own schedule for council recess, budget schedule, and December break, as you know.

Appeals aren't preventing converting the thousands of empty high rise units here into housing.

So in my spare time, I play soundtracks for Dota, World of Warcraft, Halo, Gears of War, and more, just like the forests in those games that were healed.

We can heal this environment and densify.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Groger.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Dave Gloger and I live in District 5.

I want to read to you from documentation for this bill.

It has been alleged that appeals have been filed in order to slow council consideration of legislation that was intended to support the development of affordable housing.

Where is the proof for that?

Why is the city putting false allegations in documentation?

The council's going to make decisions based on allegations.

Shame on the city for publishing a statement like that.

People file appeals because they care about the environment, plain and simple.

If these appeals slow down development for affordable housing, then why is Seattle one of the top cities for producing more housing?

And why are there 13,000 apartments listed on places like Apartment.com?

We can take a little more time.

We can look at the environment.

Councilmember Lin has stated that environmental appeals have resulted in time enough financial expenses for the city.

While this is accurate, it does not tell the full story.

For instance, the current appeal against the EIS for the One Seattle plan could have been completed last year.

However, the city's attorneys have attempted to miss the appeal on technical grounds rather than addressing the merits of the case.

Yes, it is the city that is responsible for the delays and the associated costs.

Well, the appellant would be happy to be done with this.

Legislation like 121215 should not be based on allegations in UNDOS and implications.

If you want the facts, read the articles that were in yesterday's Seattle Times and the South Seattle Emerald.

I'll leave them in the comment box for you.

I urge you to reject 121215.

Thank you, David.

Good morning, Chair Lynn and members of the land use committee.

My name is Kathy Minch.

I am here in opposition to Council Bill 121215 for all the reasons you have heard so far today.

I am a 34-year resident of West Seattle, living one mile from Puget Sound in a neighborhood of smaller houses and trees.

In a democratic society, citizens' rights are as important as developers' rights.

For many years, Seattle has been a regional and national leader in sustainability.

Passage of this bill would be one more hammer to the quality of life in this city on the sound.

I urge you to vote against Council Bill 121215.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Comments, sorry.

Good morning, Susan Fedora District One.

I was born and raised here, and I no longer recognize the values of the city.

I asked Council Reject Council Bill 121215.

Seattle's not an outlier in the CEPA appeal process.

Olympias, Vulcan, Kent, the counties of Snohomish and Pierce all maintain administrative CEPA appeals.

King County maintains a more nuanced process, but it still exists.

If there's concern the process takes too long, consider reforming it, but please don't revoke the one affordable mechanism.

Citizens have to challenge what they find to be insufficient environmental review, whether it be for housing or for data centers.

If the EIS reflects a thorough review based on best available science, we wouldn't need to exercise the appeal process to begin with.

Removing this process eliminates accountability to the public, and the decisions that impact us are increasingly made behind closed doors.

The claim was made that removing this process would allow more time to focus on ways to address climate change.

Simply building housing near transit isn't enough.

The city needs to address the continued extraction and disruption of our ecosystems.

It's been scientifically proven that trees remain the most effective defense against climate change, yet we're losing our biggest remaining trees to more parking spaces the city doesn't need.

During the 2021 heat dome, 117 Seattle residents lost their lives as a direct result of extreme heat.

Since then, the city's permitted the removal of thousands of mature trees and added more pavement.

Not only does concrete have a significant carbon footprint, it exacerbates the deadly effect of high temperatures.

To achieve climate resilience, we need to start by strengthening the tree ordinance and joining the DPAV movement.

Increasingly, community members are finding they have no voice and no choice with the continued degradation of our environment.

Please maintain the citizens' right to sit a CEPA appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Brandon Derplotter, followed by Jonathan Warren.

I'm a car free renter in Seattle.

First, I'd like to note the likely bias you'll hear in public comments at 9 30 a.m.

on a weekday.

It's hard for working renters to make it at this time, but easy for richer retired folks who are much more likely to own homes in Seattle.

I'm tired of dense housing projects and green transportation infrastructure.

Uh like bike lanes being blocked by SEPA appeals.

I strongly support the council bill intended to remove the appeal path to the Seattle hearing examiner.

We have enough other protections in place, including public comment where people can make their voices heard if they have concerns.

The appeal path has long been abused in bad faith by people who claim to care about the environment.

When all they really care about is slowing down new housing projects.

These projects can be delayed for a year or more until the hearing examiner makes their decision.

Many people have brought up how few appeals have been made, but a small number of appeals on huge projects can have a massive outcome.

For example, one of these appeals was on the city's comprehensive plan, and then it got delayed for a year.

That's the plan that is decides the entire city's zoning policy, so a single appeal can effectively block thousands of units of housing that would otherwise be permitted by an update to the comprehensive plan.

Over half the carbon emissions in the city of Seattle come from cars, nearly twice as many emissions as an expeditor big emitter emitter air travel.

And we really do care about the environment, we would do everything in our power to reduce car emissions.

One of the best ways to do that is to build more dense housing so people don't have to drive to the city in order to work or shop.

Occasionally trees need to be cut for these projects, but the number of trees cut per unit of infill housing is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the number of trees cut per unit of suburban small sprawl, which is the alternative that gets built if housing can't be built in the city.

Or three trees might be cut for a 50-unit building in Seattle, 30 or even 300 trees might be cut for 50 single family homes with big grass lawns and driveways.

Also, Seattle has policies in place to remove any remove or to replace any remove trees.

Please vote yes on Council Bill 121215.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Jonathan Warren, followed by Ruth Williams.

Good morning.

Uh Jonathan Warren, professor, University of Washington, International Studies, small-time developer, big advocate of social housing, District 4.

I'm here to oppose uh 1212.

What is it?

One four.

Should know by now.

For a couple of reasons.

First, in this moment of democrat democratic backsliding, I think it's a big mistake to uh pile on at the city level.

Uh, you know, we're all a bit freaked out by what's going on at the national level, and this even if it's doesn't have that effect, I think it has the impression of having that effect.

So I think first of all, that's it's a huge mistake to do it this moment.

Second, it seems that this is being done in the name of creating affordable housing.

There's really no evidence that this is uh contributing to the lack of affordable housing.

Um I don't have time here to offer all the stats and details, but um, at your disposal if you if you want to discuss it in more detail, but there really is no hard evidence that uh uh some of these environmental concerns and delays are really what's uh creating uh uh um the the crisis around housing.

Uh this is some myth, this abundance myth that's a kind of Reaganomics philosophy that's been picked up by segments of the left that somehow regulations around the environment are the cause of our housing crisis.

It's really gonna be solved by public investment, such as social housing programs, not by eliminating heritage trees and uh uh gutting uh green spaces.

Finally, our mayor said it's about roses.

Keep in mind we want the roses too, right?

Not just the bread, even if this were to give us affordable housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, and what he said.

Um, I am uh speaking to the very disappointing 1212 15.

I'm Ruth Williams for Thornton Creek Alliance, and um uh Thornton Creek is largely in uh D5 in Seattle.

The summary in fiscal don't repeat with zero substantiation, the totally unsubstantiated allegation that people who appeal CEPA decisions to the hearing examiner are working to avoid having affordable housing in their neighborhoods.

But we can substantiate that it was Mayor Wilson herself who held her taller, denser, faster meeting and excluded the BIPOC and environmentalist communities.

Then the director's report with again zero substantiation, alleges proponents of this bill see more value in removing the SEPA appeal hurdle and adopting legislation that may have significant environmental benefits, especially legislation that would allow more housing.

God, I love our allegations.

News flash.

We all want more housing in our neighborhoods.

We want it done correctly.

We need to look at the big picture and protect what makes our neighborhoods healthy.

And here's another revelation more humans don't mere human, sorry, don't get to cherry pick what is and isn't environmental protection.

We don't get to cherry pick what is and isn't a useful response to climate change.

It's a yimby proposition if ever there was one.

We need all hands on deck, and no amount of alleging smearing or silencing informed voices will get us there.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Sure, that's our last in-person commenter.

We will now move on to remote commenters.

Um, starting with Joshua Morris.

Are you oppose Councilable 121215?

Although presented as a means to accelerate housing production while protecting the environment, this bill does neither.

Instead, it reduces opportunities for equitable civic participation and limits the ability to identify correct environmental problems before policies are finalized.

Any finance complex, the consequences are difficult to protect.

This bill restrict the fields to the growth management hearings board or to courts.

Weakening oversight is not efficiency.

We support more affordable housing, but eliminating administrative appeals is far removed from real constraints on production, including land costs favored financing and permitting.

Thank you.

Next up we have Sarah Clark.

Chair Lynn, members of the land use committee, my name is Sarah Clark.

I'm a lifelong resident of D6.

I'm here today testifying on behalf of the over 2500 members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, respectfully asking you to support Council Bill 121215.

Seattle's business community has been consistent in our advocacy on housing policy.

In order for us to build the amount of housing we need across all types and at all income levels, we must deploy an all of the above approach.

Redundant reviews like those the bill proposes to remove from the city's PIPA process, review process, contribute to delays and the much needed progress to develop the housing of all types of cities desperately need.

For Seattle's local businesses, the persistent lack of affordable housing deepens our struggle to recruit and retain workers, which is costly and adds uncertainty for our local job market at a time when we can't afford more.

It upholds environmental safeguards, optimizes city administrative processes, and enables developers of all types to build the housing at the pace our regional crisis requires.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to creating an inclusive community.

Thank you.

Next up we have Marilyn Smith.

Thank you, Council members.

Members of Seattle's government don't like the court's opinion on this issue, which upheld the public's right to challenge the adequacy of the city's environmental review under CEPA.

So instead of looking at the actual issues, they rushed in to eliminate that public challenge.

You claim these bills will protect the environment when in fact they undermine the importance of honest environmental review.

Councilmember Lynn, and by the way, I apologize for misspelling your name in my written comment.

You claim that these bills will, quote, minimize suburban sprawl, unquote.

The state legislature has already required our suburbs to eliminate single family zoning.

So if anything, we will see denser housing in most of King County, though state laws apply not just to our neighboring cities and suburbs, but even to towns with less than 25,000 people.

The bills before the committee today don't, as you claim, encourage dense housing.

The state and city, by their legislation, are already doing that.

These bills are designed to prevent careful review of the effects of zoning changes on the environment.

Is it possible the sponsors are afraid of what such reviews might disclose?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Alan Fort Gang.

Alan, I see that you're unmuted.

Yes.

Hello, my name is Aline Fort Gang, and I'm speaking on behalf of Humane Voters of Washington.

I'm asking you, asking you not to eliminate the citizens' environmental appeals process by voting no on CB 121215.

Without this process, our precious trees and our ecosystem could be in peril.

Does Seattle want to be like Tuckwilla with a tree canopy coverage about 6%?

Or do we want to strive to have a tree canopy coverage more like Bellevue at 40%?

Currently we're at 28% and trending down, not up.

Mature trees, as you know, are vital for clean air, the healthy waters of future sound for our struggling orcas, and for a cooler, more beautiful city.

The citizen environmental appeal process gives the public a legal way to ensure environmental harms are reduced.

Your vote matters, so please protect our environment and appeal pro the environmental appeal process and vote no on CB121215.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Greg Smith.

Hi, I'm Greg Smith and I live on Capitol Hill.

I'm not a developer.

I'm an ordinary citizen.

I moved to Seattle a few years ago to work on a program for homeless people.

I'm calling to support CB 121215.

And I agree with what others have said in support of the bill.

But I want to draw attention to another aspect of this, and that is homelessness.

We know that homelessness continues to increase, and we just got a report recently that homelessness increased yet again last year.

We know that not building enough housing in an area is the ultimate cause of homelessness.

We also know that CIFA is impeding the building of housing and timely manner.

We need to reform SEBA so we can get more housing built and reduce homelessness.

Please pass CB 12-1215.

Thank you.

Next up we have Angela Shibot.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello, my name is Angela Chabot.

And I oppose Council Bill 121215.

I'm a lawyer, a concerned citizen.

I live in District 3.

I love this city.

I moved here 23 years ago because of its trees and livability.

And I am glad to see that my representative on the council, Joy Hollingsworth, is on this committee.

This bill, as you know, does away with CEPA appeals to a city examiner.

What problem is this proposed legislation trying to solve?

This process has been in place for approximately 50 years.

In 1971, the Washington State Legislature passed FIFA to require environmental impacts to be weighed during local decision making.

In 1973, Seattle created the Office of the Hearing Examiner to absorb appeals that used to go straight to court.

And in 1977, the office transitioned into an independent quasi-judicial entity.

There is less spread tape to handle appeals of environmental assessments under CEPA at the city level than to force appeals into state court.

And these appeals are not an impediment to building affordable, smart, and climate-friendly housing in Seattle.

Do the extent the appeals slow the process?

Is it an appeal or a faulty environmental assessment, the core problem?

If the city did its job well on environmental assessment, then there would not be any need for an appeal.

If the city does not do its job well, there must be accountability hearing examiner.

This keeps costs down and streamlines the process for the challenger as well as for the city.

If this legislation is enacted, environmental appeals will take even longer in state court because of the rigid formal way that all lawsuits proceed.

I am concerned that this legislation's intent is to erect an obstacle to public input on a foundation and Lois Martin.

Good morning.

Next up we have Lois Martin.

I am a lifelong central district resident and educator, and I'm here to oppose Council Bill 125215.

If the city's environmental impact statement is unimpeachable, why eliminate the appeal process?

A sound EIS does not need to be protected from challenge.

It withstands challenge.

The data proves the existing system already works.

Of 28 super appeals filed between a 10-year period 2016 to 2026.

The vast majority were dismissed or withdrawn, averaging 52 to 69 days.

Only cases with legitimate merit move forward, the system filtered out weak claims on its own.

Instead of defending the adequacy of the EIS, proponents have resorted to name-calling, labeling appellants and those in opposition as weaponizers and bad actors.

They call us privilege.

That is not a defense of the EIS.

That is deflection from it.

It takes real privilege to discover a housing crisis only when it affects your own life choices, while black indigenous and working class communities have been living that crisis for generations.

Silencing critics instead of letting due process play out is not a democratic value.

It is a tactic we have watched the MAGA movement used against the courts, the press, and anyone who challenges those in power.

Legislating silence is not democracy, it is suppression.

The communities with the most at stake and rigorous environmental review are low-income residents, runners and communities of color who have historically borne the environmental cost of an adequate review.

Those communities fought to stay in the city.

They should not be told their right to challenge an adequate environmental review is an obstacle to progress and progress for whom.

If the city's environmental review is found, prove it in front of the hearing examiner.

Let the evidence speak.

Reject Council Bill 121215.

Seattle's communities deserve process, not promises.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Rivers Dysert.

Hello, Seattle City Council.

My name is Rivers Dysart, a longtime Seattle resident, District 5.

Please vote no on CB 121215.

This bill would eliminate the public's only affordable way to challenge inadequate environmental review before major legislation and city projects are approved.

The problem isn't environmental appeals, but rather inadequate environmental impact statements and a hearing examiner process that needs reform.

Ensure that environmental impact statements assess impact accurately from the start.

Instead of eliminating appeals altogether, reform the hearing process so appeals are resolved in under 60 days.

Appeals are rare, averaging just 2.7 per year over the past decade, with less than one housing related appeal per year.

Eliminating an important public is a drastic step disproportionate to the problem.

Cast appeals have uncovered serious errors and previously undisclosed information that improved public understanding and council decision making.

Appeals do not hold up housing production.

If they did, Seattle would not be consistently leading the nation in producing housing.

This bill entrenches the power of the developer lobby, which in the first three months of this year had 40 meetings with city leaders, 38 of them private, conversations that translate into proposed legislation and influence on our elected officials' decision making process.

By contrast, there were no documented meetings with environmental organizations.

Citizens' environmental reviews are our chance to push back on that power through our own checks of government.

Please preserve the public's right to independent environmental review by voting no on C B 121215.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Rachel Nathan.

Hi, my name is Rachel Nathan.

I've heard Councilmember Lynn in previous committee meetings say that with this bill, the city will just have to be sure to do stellar environmental work to protect our city.

But someday, new council members will be sitting in your seats.

New staff will be preparing planning goals and documents.

A new mayor will preside.

New staff will analyze and write environmental documents.

Do you want to entrust these yet unknown decision makers with watered-down environmental practices?

I mean, what might be their aims?

What decisions might they make that will make you cringe as you read the morning news?

For two years, we've been battling the Trump administration policies that are taking away our democratic rights, including environmental protections.

Removing type 5 legislative decisions from the current appeal process does just that.

Takes away environmental protections.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Ruby Holland.

My name is Ruby Holland.

City Council newbies want to tear our city up and make it unrecognizable without oversight, without the right of appeal, or even a robust conversation.

They do more due diligence when buying a car.

They want to rush things through before we notice glaring problems and/or corruption.

We need only look at council member rink's failed regional homeless authority to see examples of her messy work.

He doesn't want a me-jerk reaction to that mess, but he wants a quick knee-jerk reaction to upzoning that will forever change Seattle.

The same guy who wrote the failed MAK wrote phase one of the comp plan, fully expecting to be re-elected as mayor so he could carry on his plan of filling working class lots for his real estate oligarch.

That baton has been passed to Rink and Foster who don't want oversight.

Governor Inslee, the real climate change guy, left us an environmentally friendly model for growth, HB 1110.

Anything beyond that needs to be examined with the utmost scrutiny.

The appeal process lets us do that.

Please keep it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have William Waldman.

William, please press star six.

William Waldman.

Okay.

We will move to our next speaker and come back to you, William.

Our next speaker is Joanna Cullen.

Hi, this is Joanna Cullen.

So I'm here to say to reject Council Bill 121215.

Please preserve the public's right to meaningful environmental review.

Require that any future legislation affecting CEPA and its appeal rights is accompanied by a full bill.

The text and the role and in multi-lingual community engagement with a demonstrated connection to specific measurable environmental incomes.

Seattle's most vulnerable communities have carried the costs of inadequate planning long enough.

We deserve a process, not promises.

I live in the central district, and stripping the most accessible community review mechanism while upzoning neighborhoods across Seattle that have absorbed generations of disinvestment is not equitable environmental planning.

It is a removal of the last formal check available to us with the least political power.

The communities that have fought to stay in the city did not do so, only to be told that their right to challenge inadequate environmental review is an obstacle to progress.

Equity invoked to justify the elimination of the tools communities need to defend themselves against equitable outcomes is not equity.

Also, I heard somebody say that King County does not have environmental review.

That is not true.

Thank you.

Next up is Ethan Staeger.

Good morning, members of the land use and sustainability committee.

My name is Ethan.

I'm a Seattle renter, a district 4 resident, and someone who cares deeply about our outdoors and wildlife.

I'm calling to urge you to pass CB 121215 out of committee and send it to the full council.

This bill is a common sense procedural reform.

It does not roll back public processes or environmental protections.

Environmental review stays intact.

What it does remove is a self-imposed administrative appeal process for legislative land use decisions, one that state law doesn't require and that has added months of delay to needed housing policy updates.

Thousands of Seattleites, many of them at work right now and unable to attend meetings like these, are counting on this council to deliver abundant affordable housing.

That's why they voted for many of you.

Only a handful of appeals are filed each year, but they cause outsized delays to project the majority of this city is relying on.

Appeals aren't where most of Seattleites make their voices heard.

Voting is please pass CB 121215 and deliver on the promises we elected you to keep.

Thank you, Cherry Lynn for having the courage to bring this legislation forward.

Thank you.

Next up we have Betha Gooch.

Hello, my name is Bethci.

Greetings to council members.

I'm a longtime resident of Seattle.

I'm urging you to reject this bill.

Considered Council Bill 121215.

I want to say that it is every citizen's right to an accessible environmental review process that holds city leaders accountable.

This is a critical path to counteracting the overbearing influence of developers and financiers and their closed door meetings.

The people seem to be the only voice standing up for trees, green spaces, and a healthy environment.

The taller, denser, faster development forces claim the appeals process stands in the way of affordable housing.

But the quote from the bill itself that's housing that is affordable to a range of income levels.

That's a very broad definition, and I don't think we're talking about solving the housing crisis for the lowest income families here.

Getting trees and environmental health against low-income housing is a smoke screen to hide unfettered development.

It doesn't need to be an either-or choice.

We can do both with smart design.

Let's redefine progress to include smart stewardship of our life-giving environment.

Please stand up for sensible development and a healthy environment.

Vote no on stripping this right from Seattle citizens, and thank you for this opportunity for an ordinary citizen to speak out.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jesse Simpson.

Hey, morning.

I'm Jeff Simpson from the Housing Development Consortium here to support Trump Bill 121-215.

Seattle has a deep housing shortage and affordability crisis.

We need more housing and we need zoning changes to legalize housing faster.

Right now, opponents of housing can file administrative delays, so if hearing examiner delaying these zoning changes for months, even though the vast majority of appeals are dismissed or withdrawn.

That kind of delay is exactly what just happened with centers and corridors, now pushed into 2027.

Fundamentally, this bill is good for housing and good for the climate.

More and denser homes near transit means less sprawl into forests and farms and less the car pollution that actually threatened salmon and orca.

The result is worse for the environment, not better.

This bill doesn't weaken environmental protection.

Critical areas, storm water, and tree protection rules all remain in effect, along with strict energy and building codes that ensure new buildings are more efficient and sustainable.

Because you will study environmental impacts and advanced council votes on land use regulations.

Anyone who wants to challenge the city's legal analysis can still do so at the Growth Management Hearings Board or the court.

So simply remove one redundant appeal mechanism, bringing Seattle in line with other jurisdictions and fundamentally in line with the intent of recent state reforms to ensure CEPA is not weaponized and block or delay housing that is good for the environment.

Please vote yes on Council Bill 121 215.

Thank you, Councilmember Lynn, for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Lucy Flanagan.

Lucy, please press star six.

Lucy Flanagan, please press star six.

There we go.

Sorry.

Um hi, this is Lucy Flanagan.

And uh um I uh am a resident of Seattle at uh for almost 70 years, District 5.

I want you to vote against 1212 15.

We're called the Emerald City, and we should celebrate that by preserving what we have left of old Seattle.

It's why people want to visit the Pacific Northwest.

Trees take a long time to grow, we forget them when they're gone, and in so doing, we incrementally lose what used to be what was great about Seattle.

So eliminating old trees warrants a thorough review.

As our representatives, you are in a position to shape the decision making process.

Eliminating the people's voice would make life easier, cheaper for the review panel, but that is not the goal.

Uh, that's the temptation.

If I may say so, listening to the people who elected you is your job.

The issue is not about environment versus housing, it's about process.

The process may need streamlining, but throwing out the public's voice would be a drastic move.

Don't make that mistake.

Please vote no on 1212 15.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Next up we have Leisha Cobe.

Hello, can you all hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, I am a transplant.

I've been here for 12 years, and I left my home state because of poor city planning.

It is simply too hot to live there now.

They tore down the trees for tech business and blindly rushing housing development.

Today it is going to be 49 degrees in my hometown of Austin, Texas.

So take this from someone who knows exactly what happens when a city forgets the public voice in development.

Seattle loves to post about its environmentalism.

We have a world-class zoo.

We brag about hiking trails, our pollinator spaces, and our waterfront.

At the waterfront opening, Chairman Leonard Forcman reminded us that we have a responsibility to preserve this land for future generations.

Our citizens back this up, pouring thousands of hours into local paid and unpaid activism.

That this council is entertaining CB 121215, a bill that eliminates the $85 CEPA appeal process, walking out regular people and handing the keys to people with unknown intentions and wealthy lobbyists.

This bill forces a deeply cynical compromise to its citizens.

It asks us to trade our affordable avenues of activism for the promise of affordable housing.

You are preying on people who need affordability, weaponizing our housing crisis to demand that we trade away rights just for a roof over our heads.

We cannot market Seattle as a progressive green city when silencing the citizens who keep it that way.

Proponents of this bill claim that this appeal process is redundant.

It is only redundant if the city allows it, if the city allows always follows the steps perfectly.

We know it doesn't.

Without this very process, the city would have approved development on the historic Crown Health Cemetery.

This appeal process is the only reason the city and developers were forced to catch critical mistakes in developing a cemetery.

There are people and speakers here that want their children to own home.

Next up we have Irene Wall.

Good afternoon.

My name is Irene Wall, and I have lived in District 6 for over 50 years, and I have been an active citizen serving on my neighbor since serving on my neighborhood planning committee during the city's first complan.

I have also been an appellant who was successful in appeals before the hearing examiner on land use actions which resulted in changes to ordinances before the council acted.

This is how it is supposed to work.

So I asked Councilmember Lynn to withdraw this misguided council bill.

Its purpose seems only to cynically silence opposition and eliminate legal avenues which are rarely used but which can head off errors and reveal important facts.

This change will do nothing to prevent the construction of affordable housing.

The speakers today from Habitat and others did not provide any evidence that CEPA appeals have delayed or prevented any of their projects.

The director's report for this bill also did not provide any evidence that CEPA appeals of non-project legislative actions have delayed or prevented affordable housing or contributed to homelessness.

CIPA appeals have also not prevented the construction of market rate housing.

Nearly 100,000 new housing units have been built or permitted in the last decade.

CIPA is not preventing increased density in Seattle, which is exceeding its targets for new housing assigned to us by the Puget Sound Regional Council.

The bill will not prevent sprawl or save forest anywhere else.

Seattle has no authority to make land use rules for any other jurisdictions.

Regarding the appeal for more de dense housing, that's already happening apace as single family homes are raised along with their trees and replaced with four expensive town homes.

Seattle land use trust has just opened two large affordable condo projects in Finney Ridge.

They were not prevented by the next up we have Richard Ellison.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Hello, my name is Richard Ellison.

I'm a resident of District 4.

In the 1990s, I was writing environmental impact documents in Seattle.

I oppose CB 121215 banning public fields on SIBA decisions.

The law for affordable housing in Seattle is rooted in the 1990s decisions by the Seattle City Council trying to break the stagnant Seattle economy by allowing developers like Paul Allen to tear down affordable housing in South Lake Union and elsewhere.

And so began the tech group.

The tech grows came a spike in housing costs as housing as the tech growth could afford expensive market rate housing and little affordable housing was built across the city to replace low-income housing.

The Super City Grand Bargain, supposed grand bargain by Mayor Ed Murray and the City Council continues the giveaway to build expensive housing and a jibble of affordable housing.

Now the council wishes to make amends by its decades of bad decisions by removing environmental appeals on any CBA decisions as opposed to supposed panacea to the housing crisis.

This housing crisis is in part your making.

It may be a mild day in Seattle, summer day in Seattle, but in Europe it is an extended heat emergency with temperatures over 100 degrees across the continent.

The Trump administration would have us believe that the climate change is a hoax.

Can we appeal Trump's gutting of the environmental oversight?

Is 2026 the year that Seattle City Council banned SEEP appeals in the Emerald City?

This blatant act is reminiscent of the policies of the current Trump administration, which is gutting all environmental protections and environmental reviews.

Like in 2003, when the Trump administration allowed mountaintop strip mining waste spoils to come directly into stream.

That was okay.

Back in 2001, when President Bush rejected the Toyota Protocols controlled CO2 emissions as fatally a flawed fundamental waste.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lisa Crozier.

Hi Lisa.

Oh, hello.

Should I read mine now?

Okay.

Sorry.

Um good morning, Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

My name is Dr.

Lisa Crozier.

I'm a Seattle resident and an advocate for dense walkable urban housing.

And I'm here today to urge this committee to halt and reject Council Bill 121215.

In addition to being a resident, I'm also an author on the Fifth National Climate Assessment.

I want to say clearly what the peer-reviewed science has shown.

Tree canopy is not a luxury amenity.

It accounts for up to 50% of a city's thermal regulation.

When you clear cut a lot and push canopy cover below a critical 40% threshold, you single-handedly drive a seven to nine degree spike in localized air temperature.

A chapter in the NPA explicitly documented how historical land use decisions have already systematically stripped tree cover from frontline communities, causing some neighborhoods to experience temperatures upwards of 13 degrees warmer than other areas of exactly the same city.

These factors directly worsened urban heat island effect and drastically increase the risk of urban flooding and toxic stormwater runoff indoor streams.

By allowing 90% hardscape allowance across the entire city, this bill locks in a two-pronged regressive tax burden.

First, a public health crisis.

Extreme heat is the deadliest natural hazard in the nation.

Second, an economic tax on working families.

When you destroy free natural canopy cooling, you shift a hundred percent of the thermal burden onto mechanical cooling.

Working class tenants will face a steep regressive economic burden and affirmate soaring electricity bills just to keep the apartment safe to live in.

Let's be entirely clear.

Making Seattle hotter, deadlier, and more expensive for marginalized communities is exactly the opposite of what care constituents want.

True progressive policy builds housing while preserving the natural infrastructure required for survival.

We do not have to.

Next up, we have Bonnie Williams.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Hi.

This is hello.

This is Bonnie Williams.

I'm from D4.

I am here to oppose CB 121215.

This legislation is very alarming because it would remove the ability to repeal environmental impact studies that serve as an important safeguard, helping ensure major decisions on comprehensive plans, area-wide rezons like the one Seattle plan, and development regulations that undergo independent citizen scrutiny on impacts that affect Seattle citizens for decades.

The Washington courts ruled on June 1 that the Seattle Seattle City's public hearing examiner dismissed the ORCA appeal in error and then it must first go to superior court and then back to the city's hearing examiner.

The court sended Godfrey's legal rights.

One of the basic purposes of an EIS is to ensure that local governments consider total environmental and ecological factors to the fullest extent when taking major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment.

That was yesterday in CL Times article.

A pause and reflection on new numbers of what actually has been built in evaluation of phase one before more layers of rezoning are added would be beneficial now.

Appellants provide additional information to the hearing examiner during the appeal process with an in-depth analysis and expert testimony before rezone legislation is passed at their expense.

Lynn insult citizens who file appeals, calling anyone who files predatory.

Appeal cases have merit and citizens have real environmental concerns and the true motives on citywide rezones.

The current appeal process allows appeals to be filed before legislation is passed.

Lynn and Lynn and OPCD instead want to defer appeals to the growth management or Washington courts, which is much more difficult and extensive.

Next up we have Sanders Luther.

Um vote to pass uh the committee kind of in here for only line years and funding at least four years, going through meetings after meetings about the comp plan about the IS and possible housing, but more housing postal year doing this again.

Council canceled all of its meetings for this year uh regarding the comp plan because of the appeal.

Um, it's crazy that we're going to be stretching into 2028 or finishing comp plan that was supposed to be done in 2024.

Uh please pass this go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Mary Hotter.

Mary, please go ahead.

Mary, I can see that you're unmuted.

Please please provide your comment.

Hi, this is Mary Hotter.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let me get started.

I urge you to reject one change of the law.

Critical.

This bill is written like it was paid for by developers, slanted against democracy with derogatory comments about the citizens.

Our trees and heat lands are all removable.

Our sewage systems that cannot handle the performance, resulting in sewage going into Lake Union, need democratic oversight for any proposed changes before publication and after.

Our critical grid for the EIF cannot handle the One Seattle plan with 350,000 units added to our housing capacity.

50% of Seattle's carbon footprint is construction and construction related transportation.

The World Economic Forum says the number one thing we can do to lower worldwide carbon footprint is to use existing buildings.

We have a hundred million square feet of office space downtown sitting empty for years.

We have 40% vacancy rates in our luxury apartments, those built in the last 10 years and going for market rate.

This removing appeals is not the answer.

The answer is to require affordable housing.

The kids have been told a fairy tale story that if we get everything they want, and removing the appeals process for EIS is part of it for cheap, they will get cheap housing, even though developers only build market rate million dollar townhomes in Seattle.

If we want affordable, we have to require it, not remove democracy to balance the environmental problems of our city, which we must mitigate.

I want to see a vacancy tax on empty offices and empty market rate housing.

I want to see a registry of empty market rate housing.

We there are other things we can do to get and address the affordable housing crisis we have had for.

Thank you.

Next up we have James Wu.

James, I see that you're unmuted.

Please provide your comment.

Yes.

Oh, sorry.

Uh, dear council members, I'm a PhD scientist working in health care, and I'm calling in strong support of Council Member Lynn.

So I work every day on people's health, and I'm acutely aware that delays in housing killed and our that our status quo has an increasing body count.

It's in the life expectancies of renters, like I was for the majority of my life in fractured communities burning their life on freeway commute hours and in a continued planetary destruction.

Every weaponized delay cost glides.

You've heard today from property-owning tree reactionaries that the status quo works just great for them.

They speak about life and death risk of heat islands while safely sheltering their homes they've lived in for decades that have also gone up hundreds of percent in value.

The most vulnerable people to heat are housing insecure people, and what they need most are homes.

The reactionaries say also please do not change their democratic rights, quote unquote, to appeal.

It's very interesting that these rights are just one way.

Appeals back towards the status quo.

Where is our public right to study the environmental impact of not building densely enough to the impact of not having housing fast enough?

The years and the life expectancy lots.

In what venues do I get to bring the suit for damages to my life and my friends' lives against predatory delays?

Those do not exist.

They've never existed.

Those democratic democratic rights do not exist by design.

I fight every day for people for their health and for everyone to thrive, not just people who were fortunate enough to buy housing three decades ago in Seattle.

Please pass 121215, which already does not go far enough or fast enough to meet the scale of our global and planetary challenges.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Ann Knight.

This is Ann Knight, a longtime resident of Seattle Central District.

I oppose 121215.

Over the past five decades, I've been involved in city projects, both as an employee of the city and as a community activist.

What I have learned in that time is the importance of everyone's voices in building a city that balances the needs of all.

It is easy for a city agency to think that it understands all the impacts of a project, but it is important to incorporate different perspectives in determining the final outcome if the goal is to create a city that serves its whole community.

Section F is particularly concerning that it impacts projects well beyond just housing development.

Having a democracy rather than a dictatorship for our government requires the ability for citizens to appeal CAS decisions to the hearing examiner.

This is the only level that regular members of the public can hope to effectively participate in the complex process and hope to have their concerns heard.

Much better projects result from a full area of the impacts and alternatives.

Without an appeal process to the hearing examiner, there's no incentive to fairly and completely present the impact.

Please do not take away citizens' ability to ensure Seattle is the best city it can be for everyone.

Vote no on the amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have a David Haynes.

David, please press star six.

Hi, thank you, David Ames.

It should be noted that the small-time landlords self-dealing with conflicts of interest on the council sabotage the comprehensive plan with restrictions on development to make sure no one builds back better.

So landlords and certain homeowners can take advantage of the supply and demand squeeze.

It also could be said that the new red line for discrimination and hatred of other people trying to build back a better home originates from people who weaponize the tree ordinance, CEPA, parking mandates, and the character of an antiquated home, all to stop other people from building back better, as if the self-dealing landlords on council with conflicts of interest who already sabotage the comprehensive plan with restrictions to make sure no one builds back better, are using the tree action group and others to intimidate the rest of council.

While those who claim that orcas are going to be suffering and somehow trumps to blame for all this is irrational.

If you all really care about housing and the environment, it's time to tear up all the asphalt side streets and rebuild sustainable greenery, walkable neighborhood blocks with advanced housing that goes higher without the roadways driving through, allowing strangers and your neighbors to drive through seeing how you're living.

Get rid of the restrictions the landlords put into the comprehensive plan to self-deal and to cater to the same people who showed up to nonstop conspire against younger generations needing a better choice in home and real equity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council member, there are no more present speakers.

Okay.

So that was our last registered speaker to speak at this public hearing.

The public hearing on Council Bill 121215 is now closed.

I'd ask our representatives from central staff to join us to present and answer any questions.

If council may have.

And council central staff.

Thank you.

And if not, we can move on to the next item of business, and we'll try to keep it brief.

I know we're running late here.

If we could move on to our eighth item of business, will the clerk please read agenda item eight?

Item eight in ordinance related to the news and zoning adopting temporary regulations previously in ordinance one two seven three zero nine for six months to exempt housing projects.

The mandatory housing affordability requirements using on-site performance units from design review, allowing for an applications for all housing subject to full design review, the option of complying with the design review pursuant to administrative design review.

Okay, thank you.

Um can you please introduce yourselves and then uh if you are able to provide a brief OP review, that would be great.

And then we'll uh go to council questions.

Alright, Keegle Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Good morning, Chris Al Torres, the design review manager with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

Christina Pulsalate, a CCI's legislative government relations manager.

Thank you so much.

Please proceed.

Maybe I'll just say a few words to kind of situate the committee.

This is an initial briefing on Council Bill 121243, which would uh reenact um some expired interim development regulations for the design review program.

Um, would extend those regulations uh for an additional six months.

Um, as I mentioned, those regulations have lapsed elapsed uh back in May or perhaps late uh April.

Um, of course, be a public hearing on this bill that uh public hearing is scheduled for uh July 30th.

Um you have a memo from me with some background um uh dated June 29th, 2026.

Um there'll be a further issue identification memo in advance of the June 30th.

I mean July 30th public hearing.

I'll turn it over to SDCI to walk through um uh interim provisions.

We may need to share this, yeah.

So uh share.

Okay.

All right.

There we go.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Okay, so all right.

Today we're gonna go over the interim design review legislation, um, what it is and why we need it, and then just briefly touch on next steps as well.

All right, so this is related to the design review program.

What is the design review program?

It is part only a piece of the permitting process.

Um, it supports larger city goals and a vision for livable urban environments.

It gives the public an opportunity to participate in the development of their communities, and it provides flexibility for new development that's not otherwise permitted by the land use code.

Why we're here?

Um, the House Bill 1293 required changes for all design review programs in the state.

Um, those included um to make the design guidelines clear and objective, um, to limit the design guidelines to exterior elements of the building design, um, and also to limit design review meetings to one, and not reducing project density below what is otherwise permitted by the zoning code.

The goal of the interim um is to fill in the gap between um the existing, not being compliant with those state required changes while we work on the changes.

Um the interim will allow us to be further in compliance with the state.

Also, it will provide flexibility for development um and affordability or housing affordability and allows us time to conduct additional stakeholder um research.

Um the interim legislation would suspend required design review and in place would allow applicants to opt into the program so that they can seek departures again that are not otherwise um accessible to those projects.

It also extends the um exemptions for affordable housing that are providing on-site affordable housing and they would also be um there's also additional departures or adjustments that are available for those projects that are exempted um that piece was also um also expired with previous legislation um so this interim legislation would again fill in that gap and allow those projects to take advantage of those affordable housing exemptions the goal with the permanent legislation is to bring the program into compliance that would include simplifying the design review process simplifying and raising the design review thresholds um updating and adopting new design guidelines and also including a limit to just one public meeting however while we are working on the permanent legislation we do need something in place which is why we're here today um we have had some um progress on the permanent legislation and this would allow us the additional time to um continue on with the development of that um before bringing it back to council all right and then again just to summarize the interim legislation that would suspend required design review allowing projects to opt in to the program to seek out departures and also continues the affordable housing exemptions that is it thank you wonderful thank you so much colleagues any uh questions vice chair or council member rink thank you chairland and thank you all for this overview um just a brief question because you mentioned the work you all are doing around permanent legislation I understand that we've done two previous extensions to stay compliant with state law um and now we're looking at a third so can you unpack a little bit more the work that you all are doing on permanent legislation and the timeline for that and what's going into informing that.

This would actually be the first extension of the legislation so um so we worked on this last year and unfortunately the extension that the interim legislation did expire so this is us we would say seeking an extension however it's lapsed so this would be kind of bringing back that in that interim legislation and we've been working we've been working hard to figure out how we can best engage stakeholders in this process you know we we we want stakeholder input in helping figure out the next steps that define the design review within the city of Seattle so um that work would continue and you know would really continue to build up our our focus right now is we have quite we have projects that are waiting for this to go back into effect.

They are queued up and ready to go and we just don't want to keep them waiting any longer because those are units that we need across the city.

That is a good clarification we need this to be able to issue permits so essential certainly thank you for clarifying both those points around the renewal and extension components and what happens if we do not uh renew um would love to continue the conversation on formation of permanent legislation thank you chair thank you councilmember and colleagues any other questions okay um so uh sounds like we'll have some next steps including a public hearing um colleagues uh also encourage you uh to arrange briefings if you do have any other um questions or concerns look forward to um both sort of further um sort of hearings and and briefings on the interim and then as well I think uh probably the more interesting part will be that permanent uh design review legislation and uh look forward to further engagement on that thank you thank you very much okay um colleagues we have reached uh the end of today's uh agenda it is 12 03 um just want to provide uh a brief comment again to thank um the room is mostly empty now but um thank everyone for coming today we sh uh heard very passionate uh comments on both sides um i um just want to say that um i don't question anybody's uh authenticity around the uh the value of the environment uh we heard very clearly that our community cares deeply about the environment um also care deeply about housing and uh we need to figure out a way to do both um and uh you know we will have further discussions on on council bill one two one two one five that is a procedural bill um it does not affect uh any of our substantive environmental protections or requirements um I will have more to say about that but it is already 1204 uh p.m.

and so I will not sort of uh take up more of your time um colleagues any I just want to sort of pause here if anybody else um has any further uh anything to bring before the committee okay hearing no further business uh thank you again uh we are adjourned our next scheduled meeting is July 15th at 9 30 a.m.