Something Quietly Consequential Happened at the Seattle City Council

Jordan Royer, Vice President

On July 18th the Seattle City Council did something of great importance yet most people will have no idea of just how consequential it really is. They moved to protect key industrial lands from redevelopment, ensuring that these areas will continue to generate good paying family wage jobs far into the future.

For over 16 years, the Seattle City Council has debated, but failed to act upon, an industrial land use policy that would protect the working waterfront. On July 18th, the Council approved the latest policy proposal from current Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell. For years, developers have wanted to change the zoning to allow housing and commercial development. PMSA, the Port of Seattle, and a number of companies and waterfront labor unions have pushed back on these efforts which culminated in Tuesday’s City Council vote.

While efforts to rezone and redevelop industrial lands continue up and down the West Coast –often sports related – Seattle’s vote is one of the first to draw solid boundaries protecting maritime industrial lands. To understand the significance of this vote, some background is needed. In 1990, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA was enacted to protect rural areas from urban sprawl. But the GMA also created Manufacturing Industrial Centers (MICs) throughout the state. In Seattle, there are 2 MICs, the Duwamish MIC (south of downtown) and the Ballard Interbay MIC (in Northwest Seattle). The idea was to protect these economically strategic areas from development in much the same way that the GMA protected rural areas.

Over time, however, smart land use attorneys have figured out how to find loopholes in local and state policies to allow development. The package that the Seattle City Council just passed is designed to close those loopholes and strengthen protections as envisioned by the GMA. But there is another planning layer that was created by the GMA. Cities were required to create Comprehensive Plans to address the requirements of the GMA. Generally known as Comp Plans, these are planning documents that are updated from time to time that guide how a city grows and invests in infrastructure.

In 2009, then-Governor Chris Gregoire and State Legislators were concerned about development threats and its impact on port competitiveness. Gregoire signed a bill that became known as the Comprehensive Plans – Port Element. This required cities with large container ports – Seattle and Tacoma – to include a port element in their comprehensive plans that would address transportation, land use, and economic development issues. And the legislature specifically included intent language addressing development pressures:

“The legislature further finds that the container port services are increasingly challenged by the conversion of industrial properties to nonindustrial uses, leading to competing and incompatible uses that can hinder port operations, restrict efficient movement of freight, and limit the opportunity for improvements to existing port-related Facilities.”

So why do State Legislators care so much about what happens in Tacoma and Seattle? It is because they understand that without competitive ports growing the import of containers, there is limited access to foreign markets for Washington State’s agricultural and manufacturing businesses. Every import is an export Opportunity.

So, will the City Council’s action be well received in Olympia? The answer is surely yes. We will soon know how it is received in Seattle – seven out of nine council seats are up for election this year. There are 45 candidates on the August 1st Primary ballot. Incumbents are concerned that the overall low approval rating of the council will impact their electability. Will this vote make an impact on these races at all? Or will it be quietly consequential? You don’t hear the average person discussing the Growth Management Act much. But it certainly matters.