Last week we filed an appeal to the City’s proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (comp plan) to allow impact fees. In order to do what they want to do, charge housing projects fees, the City has to amend the comp plan. With all land use related proposals, including this one, comes a required analysis under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Such an analysis comes either with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) explaining how the proposal would impact the environment and how those impacts would be mitigated, or a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) asserting that the proposal has “no probable significant adverse environmental impacts,” (WAC 197-11-340(1)). Following our appeal and that of another group, Councilmember Lisa Herbold issued an official eye-roll suggesting that the SEPA review process is nothing more than “a purely procedural decision.” As with most dismissive statements, Herbold’s betrays an arrogance and carelessness typical of the City Council.

In a longer email to constituents, Herbold wistfully lays out the schedule for fees that “would have been” had we not filed the appeal.

We’d planned to, in December 2018, consider 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments for a transportation impact fee program.

After passage, then from December 2018 to February 2019 the City Council would continue analysis and development of a potential impact fee rate schedule, development of options for credits based on planning geography, and legislation drafting.

Finally, the Council had planned from March to April 2019 to consider legislation implementing a transportation impact fee program.

Sad! Looks like that may not happen after all. The other appeal to the finding of no significance, filed by the office of Jack McCullough, says it best:

The City’s approach turns a blind eye to reality and ignores the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”). The City may not take the major and consequential step of amending its Comprehensive Plan without a full analysis of the environmental effects of the Proposal.

What’s ironic is that Herbold celebrates and even proposed legislation to make it easier for neighborhoods to do exactly what we’re doing, forcing more analysis of impacts. For Herbold, when neighborhoods do it, an appeal is all about doing the right thing. When people who produce housing use the process to point out overreach and wide negative environmental impact, it’s just a speed bump in a “purely procedural” decision.

The truth is that by Herbold’s own fuzzy math, increases in prices for housing is a direct cause for homelessness. I even quoted her in the appeal saying that,

Further a recent Zillow study shows that a 5 percent increase in the median rent correlates with a 250 percent increase in homelessness.

Of course this was a sloppy overstatement of the correlation; it’s actually 250 new homeless people for each 5 percent increase in rent. Just forget the fact that such relationships don’t point to a casual relationship but a correlative one. But even if it tracked exactly as Herbold believes I guess she’d also have to believe that somehow the increase in rent that would come from impact fees would some how be exempt from the correlation. But that’s the point. We need to find out what impact these fees would have.

As Herbold says, “the appeal means that we are unable to act in December as planned, but let’s see what the Hearing Examiner has in store for us.” Yes, let’s see. 

We’re making the City do the math and show their work. Support us today with a contribution online. Just click below!