IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
THAT HE CAN SPEAK BY PHONE.
I WOULD MOVE COUNCIL MEMBER
O'BRIEN TO PARTICIPATE AND VOTE
UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER ONE.
MOTION SECONDED.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON MY
MOTION?
THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE VOTE AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE VOTE NO.
THE MOTION WILL CARRY AND
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN WILL BE
PARTICIPATING IN VOTES UNTIL
THE COMPLETION OF AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER ONE.
HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, I WILL
MAKE SURE THAT IT IS WORKING.
COUNCILMEMBER CABRERA O'BRIEN
IS HERE ALREADY.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, I
APPRECIATE IT.
>> NO OBJECTION.
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
CALENDAR TO BE ADOPTED, THE
REFERRAL THERE IS ADOPTED.
NO OBJECTION.
TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
NO MINUTES FOR APPROVAL.
NO PRESENTATIONS TODAY.
AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE
COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS IN THE
REFERRAL CALENDAR AND THE WORK
PROGRAM.
PUBLIC
COMMENT WILL BE EXTENDED FOR 20
MINUTES AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN
SOME OF THAT MAY NOT BE CLEAR.
WE WILL HAVE REGULR PUBLIC
COMMENT ON ALL OF THE AGENDA
ITEMS AND OUR WORK PROGRAM.
LATER IN THE PROGRAM AGENDA WE
WILL HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC
HEARING SPECIFICALLY ON 976.
WE WILL ALLOT THE SAME AMOUNT
OF TIME ON THAT LEGISLATION.
IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR GENERAL
COMMENT, YOU ARE VERY WELCOME
TO SPEAK TWICE ON THAT ONE FOR
THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT MAY BE
A LITTLE REDUNDANT.
WHEN I GO THROUGH THE GENERAL
COMMENTS SECTION, IF YOU MADE A
MISTAKE AND WANT TO SPEAK ON
THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUST
INDICATE SO WE WILL MAKE SURE
THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT
OF TIME FOR THE HEARING.
HAVING SAID THAT, THESE ARE ALL
GENERAL COMMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT IS 976, OKAY, THANK YOU.
FIRST TO SPEAK, I HOPE I MADE
IT CLEAR THAT YOU MIGHT BE ON
THIS.
I APOLOGIZE.
FOLLOWED BY TOM ALLEN.
>> THIS BILL CB 119600 IS NOT
ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR
FRIVOLOUS APPEALS.
IT IS ABOUT STRIPPING US OF THE
RIGHT TO APPEAL FOR
NONFUNCTIONAL HEALTH
THREATENING DESIGNS, WITH THOSE
FROM OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPERS
AND THEIR ATTORNEYS.
THESE DEVELOPERS ARE
OBSTRUCTIONISTS THAT ARE
PUSHING THE APPEALS ANGLE TO
YOU, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT
TO BE ASKED TO MITIGATE HEALTH
AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT LIKE
LOSS OF DAYLIGHT TO THE
RESIDENCES AND SURROUNDING
BUILDINGS AND OVERWHELMING
PUBLIC STREETS AND VALLEYS WITH
SERVICING THESE MEGA TOWERS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SOLVE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TOUGHEN UP
DESIGN REVIEW.
WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM.
THIS
BILL CLAIMS IT WILL PROVIDE A
BETTER PROCESS.
RATHER THAN CRAMMING IT DOWN
OUR THROATS, TODAY, LET'S LOOK
AT THOSE RULES AND SEE WHAT
THOSE PROCESSES ARE, AND DELAY
THIS BILL UNTIL IT CAN BE
PROPERLY VETTED.
THANK YOU.
>> TOM ALLEN WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY STEVE ZEMKE.
>> HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR
HEARING US OUT TODAY.
I
WANT TO SHOW SOME EXAMPLES OF
THE APPEALS THAT HAVE COME UP.
THIS IS FROM THE FORT LAWTON
APPEAL.
THE
NEXT PAGE HAS A SECTION ON
PARKING.
THIS IS FROM THE FLATS APPEAL.
THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM A PUBLIC
COMMENT FROM THE LEADER OF THE
GROUP THAT LED THE APPEAL.
ALL OF THESE HIGHLIGHTED THINGS
ARE SIMPLY ABOUT PARKING.
THEY ARE NOT REALLY ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS FROM THE BULLET CENTER
APPEAL.
THIS WAS BUILT TO BE THE
GREENEST BUILDING IN THE WORLD.
ALL OF THESE HIGHLIGHTED THINGS
ARE ABOUT PARKING AND HOW THEY
WANTED MORE PARKING.
53% OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IN SEATTLE ARE FROM PRIVATE
AUTOMOBILE USE.
IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF
BUILDING A GREEN BUILDING TO
APPEAL.
THIS IS FROM THE EASTLAKE MICRO
HOUSING APPEAL.
THIS ONE BROUGHT UP PUBLIC
SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
FROM TRANSIENTS, AND FOR
RENTERS.
AND BELOW THAT AGAIN IS
PARKING.
THIS IS FROM THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY LOOKED AT 15 YEARS OF
PROJECT APPEALS.
VERY FEW WERE NOT COVERED BY
OTHER CODES IN THE CITY AND
THEY NOTED THE INCREASE TO THE
COST OF HOUSING.
NOT JUST THROUGH PROJECTS THAT
WERE NOT HAPPENING, BUT ALSO
THROUGH DELAY, HOUSING DELAYED
IS HOUSING TONIGHT.
THIS IS MALICIOUS USE.
PLEASE PASS THIS COMMON SENSE
REFORM.
THANK YOU.
>> FOLLOWING STEVE WILL BE
RICHARD ELLISON.
>> I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
PASSING THIS TYPE OF
LEGISLATION UNDER COUNSEL BILL.
YOU ARE LOOKING AT ELIMINATING
REVIEW PEER TO START OUT WITH
THE INTRODUCTION, THERE IS
GENERALLY LESS NEED TO EMPLOY
AND EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
IT
WILL BE PERIODICALLY UPDATED
FOR GREATER PROTECTIONS AND
ORDINANCES.
YOU SAID THAT WE CAN UPDATE AND
DEAL WITH THESE THINGS.
THE OTHER ISSUE WITH THAT
PARTICULAR CODE IS AS I HAVE
TOLD YOU BEFORE.
THE EXPANSION FOR THE CITY THAT
SAID DEVELOPERS MUST REPLACE
ALL TREES THAT ARE 24 INCHES OR
LARGER.
THAT HAS BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE
2001.
IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED.
NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T A
NEED FOR APPEALS.
I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I
REALLY THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO
BE EXPANDED.
IT IS RIDICULOUS TO HAVE THE
DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS, A
MISSION TO HELP PEOPLE BUILD
AND HAVE THEM AT THE SAME TIME
BE OVERSEEING ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN IGNORED.
SAYING LET'S GET RID OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM.
THEY ARE OUT THERE TO MAKE
MONEY, AND I CAN MAKE MONEY OFF
PUBLIC HOUSING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> LET'S CALL THREE NAMES.
FOLLOWING RICHARD WILL BE
FRANK, FAY, JANET, AND ALICE.
>>> MY NAME IS RICHARD ELLISON.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON BILL CD
119600.
THIS IS ABOUT THE ENTIRE POLICY
OF APPEALS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
AND INSPECTIONS IS THE WOLF IN
CHARGE OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE
DEVELOPED.
DCI DECIDES HOW NEIGHBORHOOD
CHICKENS ARE GOING TO BE
HUMANELY SLAUGHTERED TO FEED
THE MARKET.
CURRENTLY THEY COULD'VE TAUGHT
WAS IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL, YOU
COULD GO TO THE TOP JUDGE, A
PROJECT MANAGER WHO HAS
PROCESSED SO MANY APPLICATIONS
OVER THE YEARS, THEY ARE
HONORABLE AND EXPERIENCED IN
THESE LIFE-AND-DEATH DECISIONS.
WE ARE LOOKING TO STOP THESE
MASS APPEALS, THERE IS A HUNGRY
CURRENT FEEDING FRENZY FOR
HOUSING.
WE WANT TO BYPASS THE - - WE
WANT TO GIVE THE MANAGERS THE
FINAL SAY IN THE BIG NEW
CITYWIDE DECISIONS.
THERE IS NO NEED TO PRETEND
THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE A
POSITIVE FUNCTION ANYMORE.
THE DCI I IS LOOKING TO DO THIS
IN THIS HUMANELY A MANNER AS
NEEDED.
I DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS
SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO PASS THIS
EMINENT, WHICH I URGE YOU NOT
TO PASS.
THE ANTI- APPEAL BILL.
THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I TESTIFY HERE IN FRUSTRATION,
TO URGE REJECTION OF BILL
119600, WHICH WILL GET REVIEW
AND DEVELOPMENT ACTION IN
SEATTLE.
IT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF
ORWELLIAN NEWS SPEAK.
THE DESTRUCTION OF GREEN SPACE
AND NATURALLY OCCURRING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS BILL WOULD DESTROY IN ALL
REGISTRY ALREADY FRAGILE URBAN
ENVIRONMENT.
IT WOULD LEAVE A GREATER BURDEN
ON FUTURE GENERATIONS.
IT WOULD ACCELERATE LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS LEAVING SEATTLE.
IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT
TO SERIOUSLY ADDRESS GLOBAL
WARMING.
A GREATLY INCREASES
GENTRIFICATION.
AND IT PROVIDES NO ADDITIONAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WILL FURTHER ENRICH THE MUZZLED
VOICE OF IMPACTED CITIZENS.
I WISH EACH OF YOU COULD THINK
ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO
TODAY.
DO YOU WANT TO SUPPORT
LEGISLATION THAT REWARDS
ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE,
MONEYGRUBBING BEHAVIOR?
COME BACK AND SUPPORT THE GREEN
NEW DEAL AND SUPPORT THIS BILL,
WE WOULD KNOW THAT YOU ARE A
HYPOCRITE.
I URGE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> I'M ALICE LOCKHART WITH 350
SEATTLE AND THE GREEN NEW DEAL.
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH
THE SHOWMAN BEFORE ME.
I WANT ALL OF YOU ON THE
COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT YOUR MOST
IMPORTANT LEGACY IS YOUR
CLAIMANT LEGACY.
AND OUTSIDE OF SEATTLE, WE HAVE
SEEN A RAPID FILLING WITH
PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO
LIVE IN SEATTLE.
WE WOULD LOVE TO BUILD AS MUCH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO HOUSE
EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO MOVE INTO
THIS CITY.
WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
THE
TAXPAYERS ARE NOT GOING TO
MAGICALLY COME UP WITH THAT
MONEY.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A COMBINATION
OF MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS AND
SOCIAL HOUSING.
WE ALL KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE.
THIS BILL IS COMMON SENSE
LEGISLATION, THAT SIMPLY ADOPTS
IN OUR CODE LEGISLATION ALREADY
ADOPTED AT THE STATE LEVEL.
TO MAKE IT SOMEWHAT EASIER TO
BUILD CLIMATE FRIENDLY HOUSING
IN THE CITY.
I URGE YOU TO PASS IT WITH ALL
OF ITS STRENGTH INTACT.
I URGE YOU NOT TO VOTE FOR THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH WILL BE
PROBLEMATIC.
SUBJECT TO FULL REVIEW.
AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO REVIEW,
IT WILL DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF
THIS MEASURE.
I URGE EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR
THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> ALICE, MEGAN, THEN ROBERT.
>> I AM JANET.
>> JAN IS FIRST, THEN ALICE,
THEN MEGAN.
>> I'M REPRESENTING CITY MARKET,
AND 8,780,000 PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO PROTECT THE PIKE PLACE
MARKET.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER FOR
SUSTAINABLE NEW FILAMENT?
IN SEATTLE WE HAVE IMPORTANT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS, WE HAVE
CREEKS SUPPORTING SALMON.
WE HAVE BEACHES AND FISHERIES
THAT IMPACT ORCA WHALES.
WE HAVE PARTS WITH HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF TREES, THAT FIGHT
CLIMATE CHANGE DAILY FOR FREE.
AND BEAUTIFUL AND THRIVING
NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ASSETS AND
FERTILE HOUSING. I REPRESENT A
GROUP IN THORTON CREEK AND
NORTHGATE.
UTILIZING THE APPEALS TO
ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IT WAS
AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE FOR
SUSTAINABILITY.
I BELIEVE YOU WOULD AGREE,
CORRECT?
THAT LITTLE CREEK RUNNING
THROUGH CITY HALL, I BELIEVE IT
WAS CREATED AS A SYMBOL BECAUSE
OF THE WORK THAT WE DID TODAY
AT THORTON CREEK.
SO THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO
STAND UP FOR SUSTAINABILITY.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO
PRESERVE CITIZEN RIGHTS.
THE RIGHT TO COMMENT AND TO
APPEAL IS YOUR PROCESS.
A PROCESS FOR ALL CITIZENS.
THROUGH THIS FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.
SEATTLE AS A SENSE OF PLACE AT
STAKE, AND VALUES AT STAKE.
WE DO NOT WANT A RUSH TO
JUDGMENT.
THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THANK YOU.
>> IS ALICE LOCKHART HERE?
SO MEGAN.
ALICE, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK AGAIN.
MEGAN, ROBERT, JESSE SIMPSON.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM MAKING CREWS HERE TO TALK
ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDINGS
FACING SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT FROM UNMITIGATED
DEVELOPED.
WE WISH THERE WERE FEWER
APPEALS, NOT EVERYONE IS ABLE
TO PUT THEM TOGETHER.
BUT THE LAND-USE SYSTEM IS
FORCING APPEALS BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT PROVIDE CLEAR AND
CONSISTENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKS
AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF
DESIGN REVIEW.
THIS BILL DOES NOTHING TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
THEY SAY THAT WE DON'T NEED
CIBA, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY
COVERED AND IT OFFERS THIS
DOCUMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS
DETACHMENT ON THE RECORD TO
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHY IT
IS INCORRECT.
UNDER A 100-YEAR-OLD LANDMARK,
WE AND OTHER BUILDINGS IN OUR
BLOCK ARE NEXT TO THE PROPOSED
TOWERS THAT WILL CAUSE US TO
LOSE 94% OF OUR DAYLIGHT.
DEVELOPERS SAY THEY ARE NOT
OBLIGATED TO DO ANYTHING TO
MITIGATE THIS.
LAST YEAR, THERE WERE APPEALS
WITH DEMANDS FOR ACCESS TO
DAYLIGHT AND PROTECTION OF
SETTINGS FOR HISTORIC
LANDMARKS.
EVEN THOUGH THAT HAPPENED LAST
YEAR, THERE HAS BEEN NO TALK
ABOUT THAT AT DESIGN REVIEW.
THEY APPLIED ARBITRARILY OR NOT
AT ALL.
THE BILL SET ASIDE DUE PROCESS.
WE ASK YOU AS THE PEOPLE WE
ELECT TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR ALL
CONSTITUENTS.
APPEALS ARE NOT ALWAYS
FRIVOLOUS AND THE CAUSE OF THE
LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
MORE COMPLICATED.
PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YES FOR THIS
BILL.
>> I WILL AGAIN REQUEST THAT
YOU DO NOT PASS 119600.
HOW CAN THESE BE MORE
MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS?
THESE ARE ISSUES THAT MY GROUP
HAS EXPERIENCED IN THEIR OWN
GROUP.
WE'VE LOOKED AT THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS.
ENCOURAGING CHALLENGES, DESIGN
WAIVERS AND DEPARTURES TO EXIST
WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTATION.
SDC I WORKS CLOSELY AND PLACES
CONSISTENT CONTINUOUS PRESSURE
FROM DEVELOPERS, IT'S DECISIONS
ALSO REFLECT THIS.
THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS SET UP,
THE DESIGNATED AT WORK
MITIGATION.
THE RESOURCES CONCERNED GROUPS
WITH MISGIVINGS HAVE SPENT
THOUSANDS OF HOURS STUDYING
THIS PROBLEM.
WE ARE
EAGER TO HELP AND TO FIX IT.
THANK YOU.
>>> I AM JESSE JESSE SIMPSON, I
GREW UP IN SEATTLE, IN WEST
SEATTLE, AND CURRENTLY LIVE IN
CAPITOL HILL.
SEATTLE FACES HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS AND CLIMATE
CRISIS.
NEW, DENSER HOUSING IN SEATTLE
MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN
DIVORCE THOSE OF US NOT LUCKY
ENOUGH TO HAVE BOUGHT A HOME IN
THE 80s OR 90s CAN AFFORD TO
RENT APARTMENTS IN THIS CITY.
WE NEED TO ALLOW THE MANY
PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE TO LIVE
IN SEATTLE TO DO SO.
IT IS PERVERSE THAT THIS HAS
BEEN USED TO DELAY AND BLOCK
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THROUGHOUT
THE CITY.
I'VE ONLY SEEN IT USED TO DELAY
WHAT WE NEED.
AS A PRIMER PRIOR TO FUSS IT
INCLUDE PARKING OR THE SOLAR
PANELS OVER THE BUILDING.
I COMMEND COUNCIL WORK ON THIS
LEGISLATION AND URGE YOU TO
PASS IT AS IS.
THANK YOU.
>> WE'VE GONE TO THE 20 MINUTE
TIME.
WE STARTED 19 MINUTES AGO.
WE HAVE TO TAKE THE TIME DOWN
BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A SHEET
AND A HALF TO EXTEND PUBLIC
COMMENT.
>> I'M ONLY GOING TO USE ONE
MINUTE.
>> I AM SUBMITTING MY
TESTIMONY, AS A MEMBER OF THE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS ALLIANCE.
WE APPRECIATE THE BRIEF
APPOINTMENT AT THE LAST MINUTE
TO DISCUSS THIS LEGISLATION
WITH US, IT DOES NOT COME CLOSE
TO ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS.
ALLOWING DCI TO CALL THE SHOTS
IS LIKE LETTING THE FOX GUARD
THE HEN HOUSE.
I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU
WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU
PASS THAT BILL TODAY, AS WE
HAVE NOTIFIED YOU, IT WILL
REQUIRE FORMAL REVIEW AND
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION AND
PUBLIC COMMENT.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE.
OUR STAFFER WAS EVEN QUOTED AS
SAYING THE COUNCIL IS NOT
INTERESTED IN REVIEW.
TO ME, THAT IS SHOWING UNDER
CONVENTIONAL LAW AND FAKE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALISM.
THIS BILL HAS NEEDED PROVISIONS
THAT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE.
BUT FOR NOW IT NEEDS TO BE
DELAYED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND
PUBLIC COMMENT DOWN TO ONE
MINUTE PER PERSON.
UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION, I
WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH WITH
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL HEAR FROM DEBORAH,
LOGAN, ACE, TAKE THE CLOCK DOWN
TO ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
IS HOUSTON?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> MY NAME IS ACE.
I MOVED TO SEATTLE BEFORE THE
END OF 2016.
I HAVE BEEN A RENTER FOR THE
ENTIRE IT FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE.
I AM A LICENSED ARCHITECT.
PART OF THE NEW PROJECT WAS IN
MY OFFICE.
I SAW THE PROJECT THAT HAD
BEGUN IN 2016.
IT STILL IS GOING THROUGH
NUMEROUS DESIGN REVIEWS TO
ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTS WHO LIVED
AROUND THAT POTENTIAL SITE.
IT IS STILL NOT SUFFICIENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THAT
PROCESS, IT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS I LOST MY JOB.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP
IN MIND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO SUFFER THE IMPACT OF DELAYS
THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
THANK YOU.
>> FOLLOWING CALVIN WILL BE
JULIA.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS CALVIN
JONES, HERE TO SUPPORT THE
LEGISLATION AS WRITTEN.
I'VE SEEN IT USED IN FORT
LAWTON, MHA, AND THE ACCESSORY
FORMS.
IN ALL CASES IT WAS A VERY
SMALL SET OF WEALTHY HOMEOWNER
GROUPS ABLE TO RAISE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO SUE THE
CITY AND DELAY OUR PUBLIC
PROCESS ON THESE ISSUES, FOR
YEARS, IF NOT DECADES.
I THINK THAT PROCESS IS
UNDEMOCRATIC BECAUSE IT LETS A
VERY SMALL SUBSET OF VOICES
SQUASH ALL OTHER VOICES IN THE
CITY WITH LEGISLATION ONGOING.
AND IT TAKES TOO LONG.
WE HAVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
AND CLIMATE CRISIS AND WE DO
NOT HAVE TIME TO LITIGATE THESE
HEARINGS ON EVERY SINGLE DETAIL
OF THESE PROPOSED POLICIES.
WE NEED TO ACT BOLDLY AND
QUICKLY.
SO, PLEASE, PASS THIS
LEGISLATION AND LET'S MOVE ON
FOR MORE TYPES OF HOUSING IN
OUR EXCLUSIVE SINGLE TYPE
ZONES.
>> I AM A LICENSED PERSONAL
ENGINEER WITH 25 YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION, I AM AN
ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL AND
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNER AND
RESIDENT.
I'M GOING TO GO OFF SCRIPT
BECAUSE I'M HEARING THINGS
TODAY WHY THIS BILL SHOULD BE
DELAYED.
I AGREE WITH WHAT THE OPPOSING
SIDE IS SAYING A LOT OF THINGS.
BUT THEY ARE COMING AT IT FROM
A LOWRISE PERSPECTIVE.
I LIVE IN A HIGH-RISE DOWNTOWN
SECTION.
WE ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORT FOR
THE HOUSING AND WE ALL AGREE
THAT HAS TO COME THROUGH
IDENTIFIED EXISTING LAND-USE.
THE
PROBLEM IS HOW THAT MANIFESTS.
I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE
BUILDING A DUPLEX IN A LOWRISE
AREA.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO STOP
THAT.
WHEN YOU TAKE OUR SITUATION
WHERE YOU ARE BUILDING A 46
STORY SKYSCRAPER NEXT TO SIX
HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE
BLOCK, THE SUSTAINABILITY OF
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SKYSCRAPER
IS IMPROVING IT IS DECREASING
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF EVERY
BUILDING AROUND THEM.
YOU NEVER LOOK AT THE OVERALL
IMPACT.
SO I WARN YOU TO DELAY THE
APPROVAL OF THIS BILL AND FINE-
TUNE IT AS IS NEEDED.
>> WE HAVE BRITNEY, PATIENCE,
AND THEN CHRIS.
ALL OUR
>>> I'M NOT FEELING 100% TODAY,
I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING BRIEF BUT
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF COUNSEL
BILL 119600.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN
DO FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IS TO
KEEP PEOPLE LIVING NEAR THEY
NEAR THE PLACE THEY WORK AND
PLAY.
THESE PROJECTS ARE WELL
STUDIED, AND IN THE MIDST OF
THIS HOUSING CRISIS, WE MUST
ALLOW PEOPLE TO WALK, BIKE, AND
LIVE WITHIN THE CITY.
WE CAN REDUCE OUR CARBON
FOOTPRINT THAT WAY.
>> THANK YOU.
PATIENTS?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS PATIENCE.
I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING DEVELOPING CONSORTIUM,
TWO EXPRESS STRONG SUPPORT FOR
THE CHANGES, SEE BUT IS OFTEN
TALKED ABOUT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS AND WE ARE EXCITED
TO SEE THE COUNCIL TAKE A
RESPONSIBLE STEP BY RETURNING IT
TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT, TO
PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.
WE PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT BY
BUILDING SUSTAINABLE CITIES
WITH HOUSING CHOICES, WHERE
PEOPLE GET JOBS, TRANSIT AND
SERVICES NEAR SCHOOLS.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT OVER THE
YEARS, IT HAS BEEN USED FOR
PREDATORY EFFORTS, DELAYING
DESPERATELY NEEDED HOMES FOR
PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.
THIS CANNOT CONTINUE WHEN WE,
TODAY, MUST BUILD 44,000 EVERY
FIVE YEARS IN ORDER TO MAKE
SURE THAT LOWER AND MODERATE
INCOME HOUSES ARE ABLE TO KEEP
UP.
WE HAVE SEEN CONTINUED DELAY
FOR EFFORTS FOR A FORMAL
HOUSING AND THAT IS NOT AN
OPTION FOR US.
THANK YOU.
>> FOLLOWING CHRIS WILL BE LISA
AND STEPHEN.
>> MI NEXT?
>> YES YOU ARE.
GO AHEAD.
>> I HAVE TO PROTEST THE
UNPRECEDENTED ELECTRONIC
VOTING.
I ENDORSE PAST POINTS MADE
AGAINST THE SEPA DESTRUCTION
BILL, THE DESTRUCTION OF
SEATTLE'S GREAT LEADERSHIP ON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
I HAVE READ SEVERAL APPEALS,
ALWAYS AS A VOLUNTEER AND NEVER
WITH LEGAL HELP.
I WOULD DEFY ANYBODY TO LOOK AT
THOSE RECORDS OF MOST OF THOSE
APPEALS AND FIND ANYTHING OF
THOSE CARICATURES OF CRITICISM
THAT WE'VE HEARD IN THESE
APPEALS.
THIS BILL WILL NOT PROMOTE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT WILL
IN FACT INCREASE DISPLACEMENT,
JUSTIFICATION, AND DENY
RESIDENTS A DECENT QUALITY OF
LIFE.
WE MUST TALK ABOUT BALANCE
HOUSING OR OTHERWISE WE ARE
CONSIGNING PEOPLE TO LIVING IN
A CONCRETE PLACE WITHOUT
GREENERY OR WILDLIFE AROUND
THE.
DAILY PEACE AND QUIET, AIR AND
WATER QUALITY, PARKING FOR
DISABLED, ELDERLY, AND SMALL
BUSINESSES.
THE DESIGN REVIEW DECISION, DCI
DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
ALTERNATIVES.
SEND THIS BACK FOR THE FAIR AND
PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE DISSERVICE
TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE'VE GOT TO START OVER, THANK
YOU.
>> LISA IS NEXT.
IS LISA HERE?
OKAY, LISA, THEN STEPHEN
ROBERTS.
>> I AM LISA KUHN.
I'M HERE BECAUSE YOU INTEND TO
USE 119600 TWO INDUCE SEPA
REGULATIONS.
AND IT SEEMS YOU ARE RACING
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BE THE FIRST
TO DESTROY EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
TO PROTECTIONS.
IN ONE SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE,
THERE WAS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE
MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY FROM
1945 THROUGH 1949.
HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THE
ARTICLE.
DEFINING CORRUPTION AS A
PERSONAL HUNGER FOR STUFFING
CASH IN ONE'S POCKET AS
AMERICANS OFTEN DO, TO STATE
THE ESSENCE OF THE OFFENSE, TO
DESTROY PUBLIC TRUST IN THE
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED
TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT
ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP PEOPLE
SAFE, EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE
ABOUT POLLUTION, KILLING SALMON
AND WHALES, WE CARE, EVEN IF
YOU DON'T CARE, ABOUT TREE
CANOPY LOSS, RESULTING IN BIRD
POPULATIONS GOING DOWN, WE
CARE.
AND - -
>> THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ] BONNIE WILLIAMS IS
NEXT.
SHE WILL FOLLOW STEPHEN.
>> THANK YOU.
TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
DUTIES OF THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL IS TO PROTECT CITIZEN
RIGHTS, AND TO REPRESENT ALL
SEATTLE REPRESENT ALL SEATTLE
RESIDENTS EQUALLY.
THIS BILL WOULD COVER THOSE
DUTIES.
THE REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE HEARING EXAMINER SAID THAT
MOST YEARS, THE USE PERMITS ARE
APPEALED TO THE HOUSING
EXAMINER.
THAT MEANS 96 OR 97% DO NOT
HAVE APPEALS.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BILL
IS TO GET THIS MONEY FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MORE QUICKLY
FROM THE BIG DEVELOPERS, AND IN
96 OR 97% OF THE CASES, THERE
IS NO APPEAL.
THAT MONEY GOES THROUGH
DIRECTLY.
THIS BILL MIGHT HAVE VERY, VERY
SIGNIFICANT CLAIMS UNDER THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF
THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL.
EVERYBODY WANTS MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THE ONLY ONES WHO DON'T ARE THE
BIG DEVELOPERS.
THEY ARE FOR-PROFIT
CORPORATIONS AND THEY HAVE A
JOB OF MAXIMIZING PROFITS.
>> YOUR TIME IS UP.
CAN YOU WRAP UP?
SAY THAT WAS A QUICK MINUTE.
>> THE CLOCK IS RIGHT IN FRONT
OF YOU.
I DID NOT SPEEDED UP.
>> DO NOT START THE TIME YET.
WE HAVE MARTIN, AND BONNIE.
>>> I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE
CHANGES TO SEPA, WITH 119600.
THE LAWS WERE DESIGNED FOR
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN THESE
LAWS.
THE CLAIM THAT THE CITIZENS
HAVE TRIED TO DELAY THIS
PROCESS IS WITHOUT MERIT.
I HAVE BEEN TO NUMEROUS PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND OPEN HOUSES, THESE
HAVE BEEN WHERE I'VE SEEN A LOT
OF FALSE NARRATIVES POINTED AT
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS AND
NAME-CALLING, IT HAS BEEN A
DIVISIVE PROCESS.
A LOT OF DOORS HAVE BEEN CLOSED
DURING THE DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS.
IF YOU DO AN ANALYSIS, YOU CAN
SEE THERE ARE A LOT OF MISTAKES
BEING MADE OVER THE LAST COUPLE
OF YEARS.
THE CITY CAN LEARN FROM THESE
MISTAKES.
THE PROCESS TOOK SO LONG HERE,
IN THIS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS.
IT LARGELY IGNORED A LOT OF
FEEDBACK TO MODIFY LEGISLATION.
CITIZENS ASKED FOR DEVELOPERS
TO BUILD MORE HOUSING INSTEAD
OF MAKING OPTING OUT MORE
ATTRACTIVE, THEREFORE CAUSING
DELAYS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THAT CAN TAKE YEARS TO
MATERIALIZE.
>> BONNIE, PLEASE WRAP UP.
TURN HER MICROPHONE OFF.
THANK YOU.
>> MARTIN AND JOYCE WILL BE
YOUR LAST SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU.
WE OPPOSE 119600.
SEATTLE HAS BEEN DEALING WITH
TRAFFIC CONGESTION RANKED SIXTH
WORST IN THE NATION.
AND IT IS GETTING WORSE EVERY
YEAR.
THESE ARE CONSEQUENCES OF
DEVELOPING BUILDINGS WITHOUT
PROVIDING GREEN COVER AND GREEN
SPACE.
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT
GREEN SPACE WOULD MAKE ADMIRING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WORSE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
PROCESS STRENGTHEN, NOT
WEAKENED.
WE WOULD LIKE TO COUNTER THE
EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
WE URGE YOU TO TABLE THIS
MEASURE AND LET THE NEWLY
ELECTED COUNCIL LOOK AT THIS
AGAIN NEXT YEAR.
>> I'M HERE TO IMPRESSUPON YOU
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REFORMS
IN 119600 AND TO URGE YOU TO
PASS THIS BILL WITHOUT DELAY.
AS YOU KNOW, SEATTLE AND OTHER
CITIES ACROSS THE STATE FACE A
CRISIS OF HOMELESSNESS, HOUSING
AND AFFORDABILITY.
THE SAME TIME, THE INFLUX OF
RESIDENTS AND JOBS HAS PUT
PRESSURE ON WATER, AND LAND.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
FOCUSES ON HOUSING AND JOB
GROWTH IN HIGH TRANSIT CITIES
LIKE SEATTLE.
ONE OF THE TOOLS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP HAS
BEEN USED TO PREVENT THE
CHANGES NEEDED TO REALIZE THIS
VISION.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT THE
BILL WOULD URGE TO ADDRESS.
REGARDING AMENDMENT FOUR, WE DO
NOT SUPPORT THIS POLICY CHANGE
BECAUSE IT WOULD STRAIN THE
ABILITY OF PROJECTS TO BE
FUNDED AND BUILT.
BUT WE WELCOME THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OUR LAST SPEAKER IS JOYCE.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> MY NAME IS JOYCE, I AM A
RETIRED RESIDENT WHO HAS LIVED
HERE FOR 30 YEARS.
I HAVE SEEN THE SEPA LAWS
PROCESS SINCE THE 90s.
WE DID GET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ON OUR BLOCK.
NOW WE HAVE A LESSER SCORES OF
DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION HERE
BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE
PROJECT REDUCED FOR MORE
PARKING, YES PARKING IS AN
ISSUE.
THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE
APPEAL.
SEPA LAW APPEALS ARE OFTEN THE
ONLY WAY IN WHICH CITIZENS CAN
DO THIS, IT'S DIFFERENT FROM
1995, BUT WE CAN SHOW THAT
THERE IS POTENTIAL LITIGATION.
SEPA ACCESS TO INDEPENDENT
REVIEW BY THE SEATTLE HEARING
EXAMINER IS A BALANCING ACT TO
THAT OVERWHELMING INFLUENCE OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I URGE
YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS MEASURE.
>> THANK YOU, JOYCE.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
I AM SORRY TO SHORTCHANGE SOME
OF YOU ON THAT MINUTE, IT WAS
VERY TOUGH, I APPRECIATE YOU
WORKING WITH US.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON WITH
OUR AGENDA.
>> 119662, LAND-USE CLAIMS,
SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2019.
AND ORDERING PAYMENT THEREOF.
>> ALL TO MOVE AND PASS THE
BILL?
MOVED AND SECONDED, ANY
COMMENTS?
PLEASE VOTE ON THE BILL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO?
O'BRIEN?
HERBOLD?
PRESIDENT HARRELL?
AIDEN WEBER, KNOWN NONE OPPOSED.
>> PLEASE READ THE FIRST AGENDA
ITEM.
>> 119600 REVIEW AMENDING
SECTIONS 3.102, .035, .070,
.100, .440, PORT 448, .45, .80,
AND .914 OF THE CODE TO CLARIFY
CONTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS AND AUTHORIZING
DIRECTORS RULES TO CLARIFY
DOCUMENTS AND MAKE CORRECTIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE
AND COUNCIL PASSING.
>> I WILL BE LEADING THE
DOCKET.
DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
AMENDMENTS FIRST?
>> I WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT
THE BASE LEGISLATION FIRST.
WE HAVE FOUR AMENDMENTS.
LET US GET THROUGH THE BASE
LEGISLATION AND IF POSSIBLE, I
WOULD LIKE THE PROPOSERS TO
ADJUST MANY VALID CONCERNS FROM
BOTH SIDES.
WE WILL START OFF WITH THE BASE
LEGISLATION.
>> COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE TODAY.
THIS LEGISLATION IS A
CULMINATION OF A THREE MONTH
PROCESS THAT BEGAN WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, AND A
LETTER WAS SENT TO THE COUNCIL
WITH A REQUEST TO UPDATE
POLICIES IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES
TO STATE LAW.
TO MAKE THIS PROCESS BETTER FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT.
CHANGING THE CODE TO MATCH
CHANGE IN STATE LAW.
CLARIFYING WHAT PORTIONS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS APPEALS AND
FOR URBAN VILLAGES WITH URBAN
CENTERS.
I HAVE MET WITH STAKEHOLDERS
INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
WHO SPOKE EARLIER TODAY WITH
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS.
TED HUNTER FROM THE WALLINGFORD
COMMUNITY COUNCIL.
AND I ALSO AT THE CHANCE TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
MY COMMUNITY HAS DONE DUE
DILIGENCE.
AND WITH THOSE WHO HAD AN
INTERES IN SEEING THIS PROCESS
DONE.
WE HELD COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND
A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AS
WELL.
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CLAIMS I'VE
HEARD.
TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION DOES NOT DO.
THIS DOES NOT ELIMINATE
CHALLENGES BASED ON
PRESENTATION IMPACT.
IT DOES NOT ALLOW UNILATERALLY
SET RULES AND DOES NOT CHANGE
THRESHOLDS FOR DOWNTOWN OR
OTHER URBAN CENTERS.
TRADING AWAY ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THAT
BUILDING DENSE, FORMAL HOUSING,
IT IS NOT CONTRADICTORY, THEY
GO DOWN AND IN HAND.
ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL WAYS
SEATTLE CURTAILS CLIMATE
POLLUTION AND SPRAWL.
THIS WOULD MAKE SOME HONEST
CHANGES TO BETTER REFLECT
CLIMATE PRIORITIES.
I
WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES IN
THE COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH ME
TO OFFER AMENDMENTS IN THIS
LEGISLATION AND ISSUES WITH
STAFF ON ALL OF THIS WORK.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS
WHO ADVOCATED FOR THESE CHANGES
AND CHALLENGE THE CITY OF
SEATTLE TO MOVE FORWARD AS
WELL.
I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS EACH
AMENDMENT.
>> THERE MIGHT BE SOME
QUESTIONS ON THE BASE
LEGISLATION.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS
SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS.
OR COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN.
WE'VE LOOKED AT AUTHORIZED
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE
INTENTION WAS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE THERE?
AND THE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR
COMMUNITY.
WE LISTENS TO THE AUDIENCE AND
THE CONCERN ABOUT APPEAL.
WE WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WERE ALIGNED WITH THE
STATE LEGISLATION.
AND ADDRESSING THE LOSS OF
APPEAL RIGHTS.
>> THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE
BILL 1923.
ADVOCATES HERE TODAY HAD
OUTLINED IT AS WELL.
OLYMPIA ACTED IN RESPONSE TO
EXAMPLES HERE IN SEATTLE, WHERE
THE PROCESS WAS MISUSED AND
WEAPON ICED TO HAVE DELAYS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND
DIFFERENT PROJECTS RECEIVED
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE.
WE HEARD EXAMPLES TODAY IN
TESTIMONY.
FOR THE BULLET CENTER, FOR MHA
LEGISLATION, FORT LAWTON,
UNTIL SPRING 2021, FOR CITIES
TO UPDATE STANDARDS, AS SUCH WE
WENT THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE
PROCESS, DOING THE OUTREACH
WITH A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS
TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE STATE
HAS ALLOWED.
IT IS NOT TAKING AWAY ANYONE'S
AUTHORITY TO APPEAL, OR TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
THROUGH, TO CIRCUMVENT ANY OF
THESE PROCESSES.
RATHER IT STREAMLINES THE
PROCESS AND ALLOWS THE BILLS TO
MOVE FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO
WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM DIFFERENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES
AND GROUPS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE STREAMLINING?
WE HEARD TODAY THAT MANY
CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT
APPEAL RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN
ELIMINATED OR REDUCED.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT?
>> THE APPEALS WILL NOW HAVE A
TIME LIMIT AND A 30 DAY
EXTENSION IF BOTH PARTIES
AGREE.
120 DAYS IS THE AVERAGE.
THAT'S WHY THE TIMEFRAME WAS
SELECTED.
WE'VE SEEN APPEALS DRAG ON FOR
MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS.
SO AGAIN, PEOPLE WILL STILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.
WE'VE NOW PUT THE PROCESSES IN
PLACE AND THE TIMELINE IN
PLACE.
THIS APPEALS PROCESS WILL NOT
DRAG ON FOR MUCH LONGER.
IN ADDITION, WE'VE ALSO ASKED
FOR EXAMINERS TO COME BACK IN
THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT IS DUE
NEXT YEAR.
PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS, WE
WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AS
A COUNSEL NEXT YEAR, TO MAKE
ANY ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER?
>> I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH
YOU ALL SOME INFORMATION FROM
THE HEARING EXAMINER ABOUT THE
LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE AS IT
RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE
TIMELINE.
I DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE
EXAMPLES WHERE THE AMOUNT OF
TIME HAS EXCEEDED 120 DAYS.
THOSE EXAMPLES ARE TIMES WHEN
BOTH PARTIES, THE CITY AND THE
APPELLANT AGREE TO TAKE MORE
TIME.
SO FOR INSTANCE, DURING THE
DELAY OF MHA APPEAL, THE
HEARING EXAMINER EXPLAINED TO
ME THAT ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING
THE CITY, HAD SCHEDULED
CONFLICTS FOR THE
REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
WITNESSES WHO DELAYED THE
CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING.
THAT EXTENSION WAS A AGREEMENT
FROM BOTH PARTIES.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS IT IS
STANDARD.
IT IS VERY UNUSUAL FOR ONE
PARTY TO OBJECT.
THE FORT LAWTON CASE, THE
HEARING EXAMINER EXPLAINS THAT
THE CASE WAS DELAYED MOST
SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE IT
ORIGINALLY REQUIRED FOUR DAYS
TO COMPLETE.
THE HEARING SCHEDULE COULD NOT
ACCOMMODATE THAT BECAUSE THE
HEARING SCHEDULE AND OTHER
ALREADY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
GIVEN THAT THE CITY AND THE
APPELLANT TYPICALLY AGREED TO
EXTEND THE TIMELINE AND THIS
BILL ITSELF DOES NOT TYPICALLY
PROHIBIT THE EXTENSION OF
TIMELINES, IT IS UNLIKELY FROM
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS ASPECT OF
THE BILL WILL HAVE AN ACTUAL
IMPACT ON THE TIMELINE.
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT
IS THE PRACTICE THAT HAS LED TO
PREVIOUSLY LONGER TIMELINES.
THESE ARE NOT COMMENTS TO
OPPOSE THIS PART OF THE BILL.
IT IS JUST TO SAY THAT WE HAVE
REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT
WHAT THIS BILL WILL ACTUALLY
ACCOMPLISH.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN I
WILL RECOGNIZE YOU IN A MINUTE.
IN YOUR RESPONSE, PERHAPS YOU
COULD RESPOND TO THIS AS WELL.
PART OF MY CONCERN ON THE BASE
LEGISLATION IS THAT IT SEEMS AS
THOUGH WE ARE IN A BETTER
POSITION TO PUT OUR NEED AND
DESIRE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND PUT IT WITH A
PERSON'S RIGHT TO USE THE
APPEALS PROCESS AS HE OR SHE
SEES FIT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAD BEEN
WEAPON EYES, I THINK THAT WAS
THE TERM.
PERHAPS IT HAS BEEN ABUSED IN
RECENT YEARS OR SOMETIME AGO.
IT HAS ALSO BEEN EFFECTIVELY
USED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS ARE INTACT, AND THERE IS
AN APPEALS PROCESS FOR A
REASON.
REALLY, MY QUESTION IS THE
PROCESS HERE.
WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF BUDGET.
THEY ARE ASKED TO LOOK UPON
SOME PRETTY IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION THAT COULD AFFECT
SEATTLE FOR YEARS TO COME.
I'M TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR
HOW LONG YOU ALL HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS, HOW MUCH
OUTREACH WAS DONE AND WHETHER
OR NOT WE SHOULD DELAY THIS
UNTIL MORE OUTREACH IS DONE.
I DON'T
KNOW HOW TIME SENSITIVE THIS
IS.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PICK ONE
GREAT NEED VERSUS ANOTHER.
THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OR THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SOME
OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE'VE
MADE.
I'M TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR
HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS.
THE BUDGET, AND WHETHER OR NOT
IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE IT IN
THE PROCESS.
THAT IS JUST MY PROFESSIONAL
CONCERN.
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED, SIR.
>> I WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF
THINGS THAT THIS BILL DOES.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS, THE
PROJECT I WOULD NO LONGER BE
REQUIRED.
I THINK STOPPING TO ANALYZE
RECENT APPEALS THAT CAME
THROUGH.
ONLY TWO OF THOSE WOULD BE
CATEGORICALLY BASED ON THIS
LEGISLATION.
6% OF THE APPEALS IN RECENT
TIME FRAMES.
IT DOES REQUIRE A SHORTENED
TIMELINE.
IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER
MENTIONED, WE OFTEN SEE
EXTENDING IT.
I THINK PART OF THIS
REQUIREMENT IS TO GET BOTH
SIDES TO GET BETTER WITH THAT
PROCESS.
ATTORNEYS ON THE CLIENT SIDE
TYPICALLY HAVE BEEN ON VACATION
FOR A LONG TIME AND REQUIRE
EXTENDED USE MULTIPLE TIMES.
YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT NOT
HITTING FOLKS AGAINST EACH
OTHER.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR I
THINK THREE MONTHS NOW.
CLEARING THROUGH THE COMMITTEE
BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE
REQUIREMENTS.
I APOLOGIZE THAT IT IS COMING
UP DURING THE BUDGET.
LOOKING AT THE CHANCE FOR
PUBLIC INPUT.
THE REALITY IS HERE. I ALSO
WANT TO ADD THAT IT IS NOT JUST
ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT IS
ABOUT BIKE FACILITIES.
IT IS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES THAT WE COULD NOT
ACT UPON ACT UPON.
THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE DELAYS
IN THE PROCESS.
I THINK FOLKS WHO DO HAVE
ACCESS OUR ALMOST ALWAYS
WEALTHIER AND CAN AFFORD
ATTORNEYS.
RARELY DO WE SEE UNITIES OF
COLOR WITH THESE TOOLS.
WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK TO
ADDRESS THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS,
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> I WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE TO
SAY THANK YOU TO THE
COSPONSORS.
AS YOU HEARD, THIS IS A PROCESS
THAT HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR
THREE MONTHS.
THE MOST INCLUSIVE PROCESS
COMING IN.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, WITH
THE HUGE LEGISLATION TAKEN ON
HERE.
>> TALKING ABOUT THE YEAR 2030,
OUR KIDS, IF THEY ARE BORN THIS
YEAR, IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR
US TO TURN THE TIDE ON THE
ENVIRONMENT TO PROTECTIONS.
ALL OF THOSE ISSUES I THINK WE
HAVE IN COMMON IN THESE BODIES
AND THIS CITY.
WE'VE BEEN ON THE FOREFRONT OF
SUPPORTING THE GREEN NEW DEAL.
MAKING SURE ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRACTIONS ARE NOT USING
UNINTENTIONAL WAYS.
CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO
CREATE TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE.
ADVOCATING THROUGH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, I
THINK THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN
WRONGLY USED TO DELAY THE
ABILITY TO CREATE A PORTAL
HOUSING AND TRANSIT AUCTIONS,
AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS THAT GET
PEOPLE OUT OF CARS.
THE RESULT OF THESE PROVISIONS
HAS BEEN THAT LESS HOUSING IS
CREATED AND A DELAYED TIMELINE,
FEWER PEDESTRIAN OPPORTUNITIES,
HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN WAYS
THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN INTENDED.
AND RESEARCHER PROJECTS KEY
PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT ALLOW
FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MULTIPLE
MODALITY NEEDS, AND STAY
WORKING ON RETIRING IN THE
CITY, THE CONSEQUENCE IS
DISPLACEMENT.
WE ARE THE THIRD-LARGEST MAKER
COMMUTER CITY IN THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY, THIRD IN TERMS OF THE
LONGEST COMMUTE TO GET INTO THE
CITY TO WORK.
AN HOUR AND A HALF AND, HOUR
AND A HALF OUT, PEOPLE IN THE
AUDIENCE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
CARING ABOUT THE BIRDS, THE
TREES, THE LAND, DECREASING
COMMUTER IDLING AND WATER
RUNOFF.
THEY CARE ABOUT THE ANIMALS
FROM HERE TO THE PUGET SOUND.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DOING IN OUR CITY.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE SHOULD
NOT HAVE TOOLS THAT ARE BEING
USED ERRONEOUSLY.
WE USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT CIBA IS USED AS A
TOOL TO PROMOTE GREEN LIVING,
TO PROMOTE DENSER OPTIONS, TO
PROMOTE TREE CANOPY, AND WE CAN
SEE OURSELVES MOVING FORWARD ON
SHARED GOALS.
REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.
PROMOTING BETTER BIKING AND
WALKING, FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN
THE CITY, TO GET THEM OUT OF
THEIR CARS.
AND DEALING WITH THE BROADER
GOAL OF CREATING MORE FORMAL
HOUSING AND TRANSIT OPTIONS,
AND A MORE WELCOMING CITY.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK
THAT THIS IS ALSO PART OF OUR
RESPONSE TO HOW WE ARE DEALING
WITH THE CRISIS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE GLOBALLY.
THERE IS ABOUT 200 MILLION
PEOPLE, UP TO A BILLION BEING
FORCED TO MIGRATE BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
RISING SEA LEVELS,
DESERTIFICATION, DEFORESTATION.
THE CRAZY SNOWSTORMS THAT WE
HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE.
AND HEAT, AND HERE IN THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST WE HAVE
EXPERIENCE SOME OF THOSE, WE
NOW HAVE A NEW SEASON, SMOKE
SEASON, WILDFIRE SEASON.
HERE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST,
WE ARE HAVING THE MOST
TEMPERATE CLIMATE HERE COMPARED
TO OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY
AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.
WE HAVE TO BE A WELCOMING CITY,
WE HAVE TO BUILD HOUSING AND
TRANSIT, AND INFRASTRUCTURE, IF
WE ARE GOING TO BE THAT
WELCOMING CITY THAT WANTS TO
WELCOME THOSE WHO WANT TO COME
HERE FOR A GOOD JOB, CLEANER
AIR, ECONOMIC STABILITY, AND WE
HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE CAN CREATE
DENSITY AND WITHOUT PREVENTING
THE ABILITY OF FOLKS LIVING IN
THIS CITY.
THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE POLICY THAT I AM PROUD
TO SUPPORT AND I THINK IT IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW WHAT IT
MEANS TO BE A WELCOMING CITY
WHILE MAINTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE VALUES AS WELL.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> QUITE INTENSE APPLAUSE ON
THAT ONE.
COUNCIL MEMBER SHAMUS WANT?
>> I WILL BE VOTING YES ON ALL
OF THESE PROCEDURES BECAUSE
THSE WILL BE A POSITIVE CHANGE.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS INDICATED
THAT SOME OF OUR APPROACHES
WILL NOT WORK FOR EVERYTHING.
WE'VE MENTIONED THE ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION ACT, A POLICY
INTENDED TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT.
IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT HAS
MOST OFTEN BEEN USED BY THOSE
WHO WISH TO CUT RED TAPE.
AS A TOOL IT IS IMPRECISE.
IT HAS BEEN USED IN A
PROGRESSIVE DIRECTION, TO
NEGOTIATE BENEFITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THERE IS A THREAT OF COSTLY
DELAYS, SOMETIMES ENOUGH FOR
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO
SUCCESSFULLY EXTRACT THE
BENEFITS.
IT IS MORE OFTEN BEING USED BY
SOME ELEMENT TO DELAY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND
PROJECTS.
THE FORT LAWTON PROJECT WAS
DELAYED FOR YEARS WITH APPEALS,
THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT,
AND LEGISLATION.
AND MORE RECENTLY, SUBJECTED TO
AN APPEAL, COINCIDENTALLY THE
SAME PERSON WHO APPEALED THE
FORT LAWTON PROJECT.
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THESE APPEALS
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ENVIRONMENT, AND ARE ONLY AS TO
SLOW DOWN LEGISLATION.
HERE IS ONE QUESTION OUT OF THE
11 PAGES OF THE QUESTIONS PUT
FORWARD IN THE CIBA APPEAL.
IDENTIFY EVERY EMPLOYEE OF THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING WHO OWNS
PROPERTY, NOT ONLY DOES THAT
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ENVIRONMENT THE LEGISLATION
THAT WE ARE VOTING ON TODAY
RESTRICTS APPEALS, AND PUTS
TIMELESS ON SOME OF THESE
BUILDINGS.
AND BUILDING IN THE INTEREST OF
OUR NEIGHBORS, HOW LONG SUCH A
BILL CAN BE DELAYED BY APPEALS.
WE SHOULD NOT ONLY CONSIDER THE
FACT THAT SEPA LAWS ARE NOT
BEING USED IN THE WAY THEY ARE
INTENDED.
BUT ULTIMATELY IT WOULD NO IT
WOULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD,
BASED ON HOW IT IS ACTUALLY
BEING USED, NOT ON THE INTENT
OF THE BILL.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ADVOCATES AND
DEVELOPERS, I DO NOT WANT TO
SEE THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE
HAD A STRONG RECORD OF DIVORCE
I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE
WIDE EXAGGERATION OF THE IMPACT
OF THE BILL, ON BALANCE.
I'M CONVINCED THAT THESE
CHANGES WILL DO NO GOOD, THE
REALITY IS, TO USE THIS TO
DELAY POLICIES AND PROJECTS
REQUIRED WILL REQUIRE MONEY AND
FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND TO
EMPLOY THIS, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
DENIED RESOURCES, AND BECAUSE
OF THAT, FURTHER APPEALS HAVE
BEEN USED TO DELAY PROJECTS
THROUGH DEVELOPMENT, GETTING
THAT BALANCE.
WE WILL BE VOTING YES ON THE
REFORMS TODAY.
SAY THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
SO WANT.
WE HAD DISCUSSION ON THE BASE
LEGISLATION.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED?
>> LET'S GO THROUGH THE
AMENDMENT AND THE CLOSING
REMARKS.
>> LET'S GO THROUGH THE BASE
LEGISLATION AND THE COMMENTS ON
THE PROCESS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE PROPOSED
BY COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
SAY THIS GOES TOWARD COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT.
>> CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT
MORE?
>> WE WENT THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE AND TALKED ABOUT
HEARING EXAMINATION AND
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
AND REQUESTING FUNDING
THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES WHAT
THE EXAMINERS CAN DO.
>> WE WORKED WITH THE HEARING
EXAMINER ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
PACHECO.
I AM PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING
DOWNTOWN SEATTLE.
HOW CAN WE PARTICIPATE WITH
THIS AMENDMENT?
>> WE HEARD LAST WEEK ABOUT
STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCE GOING
THROUGH THE HEARINGS, EXPERTISE
IN THE PROCESS, MY
RECOMMENDATION IS WITH THE CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICE, AND
WORKING WITH NEW STAKEHOLDERS IN
GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS
>> INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
INTERESTED INTERESTED IN
SPITTING HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY
WITH THIS LEGISLATION THEY
MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ACTUALLY INFLUENCE WHAT COMES
OUT FOR THE HEARING EXAMINER.
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE
MADE SURE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF WHAT WE ASKED, FOR THE
HEARING EXAMINER TO CONSIDER
THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE MAKING
TODAY.
SO FOR THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT
WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY, ALL
THOSE IN FAVOR BEFORE I CALL
THE VOTE?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WILL PASS.
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN,
ONBOARD.
MOVING TO AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
I BELIEVE YOU ARE OPPOSING?
>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I WANT TO THINK THE COUNCIL
MEMBER FOR COSPONSORING WITH
US, HARMONIZING THE AMENDMENTS
FROM LAST YEAR.
COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THE WORK
PLAN AND ACTION FROM THE
EXECUTIVE AS THE BASIS, I'M
LOOKING AT HOW WE THINK ABOUT
HOW WE MARRY THOSE AREAS FOR
MIXED HOUSING OPTIONS.
THE
COUNCIL MEMBER TALKED ABOUT
MIXED-USE HOUSING, MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE
WORKERS AND HOUSING IN GENERAL.
I THINK IT IS A GREAT STRATEGY
THAT WE HAVE USED IN OTHER
AREAS.
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE
ADVANCING AND ALSO INCLUDING
HOUSING AND MIXED-USE OPTIONS.
THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY JUST
SAYS LET US HAVE THE
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY, NOT
JUST PIECEMEAL LAND-USE CHANGES.
>> I'M HEARING SECTION TEN.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
AMEND THE COUNCIL VOTE.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN?
IN FAVOR.
MEN AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO IS
PAST.
WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT,
NUMBER THREE.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND 1196 AS
PROPOSED IN AMENDMENT 93.
>> SECONDED.
>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT?
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DIRECT
SDC I DO ADMIT THIS LEGISLATION
REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT. IT
REQUIRES THE DRAFTING OF THE
ADMINISTERED OF BILLS, BUT ALSO
TO HELP THEM DEVELOP THE
CREATION OF THOSE RULES.
ALSO I THINK THERE IS ONE OTHER
THING THAT IT DOES.
PUBLISHING THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULES IN THE LAND-USE.
OR ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS
OR EXPLANATION AMENDMENT NUMBER
THREE?
THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE A
MOMENT TO ADDRESS THIS.
>> I AM WORKING THROUGH COUNSEL
CENTRAL STAFF.
I HAVE ASKED DCI TO NOTIFY US
OF THE CONTENT BEFORE IT GOES
INTO EFFECT.
>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE?
MOVED AND SECONDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER THREE?
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
NUMBER THREE PASSES LET'S MOVE
TO THE LAST ONE, AMENDMENT
FOUR.
WE WILL ASK COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AGAIN.
SENATE'S COUNSEL HAS DONE A LOT
OF WORK TO LIMIT PARKING
REQUIREMENTS BUT WE HAVE NOT
DONE MUCH TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT
OF DEVELOPERS WHO CREATE TOO
MUCH PARKING, PARTICULARLY
DOWNTOWN.
THIS PROJECT INCLUDES 30
PARKING SPACES, REQUIRED AND
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPEAL.
I LOOKED AT TWO DIFFERENT
ARTICLES, ONE WAS FROM 2015,
WHERE THERE WAS A REPORT THAT
THERE WERE 34 PROJECTS IN THE
WORKS THAT INCLUDED A TOTAL OF
NEARLY 12,000 PARKING SPACES.
HE FOLLOWED UP THAT REPORT IN
JUNE OF THIS YEAR, THAT REPORT
DOCUMENTED THAT IN 2015, IT WAS
ALREADY REPORTED TO BE AT
CAPACITY, CARRYING 20,000 CARS
ON AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY, NOW IT
WAS CARRYING 38,000 CARS.
THEY ADDED 36% MORE.
STATE LAW AND CITY REGULATIONS,
FOR EXAMPLE PARKING LOTS WITH
40 FEET OR FEWER PARKING SPACES
FROM REVIEW.
PARKING LOTS WITH NEWER THIN 40
SPACES WITH FEWER THAN 40
SPACES ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO
THIS, EXEMPT REQUIRED ACCESSORY
PARKING AND ACCESSORY
DEVELOPMENT IN AN URBAN SPACE.
THAT MEANS UNDER THEIR
INTERPRETATION, RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE NO
PARKING SPACES MAY BE EXEMPT
FROM REVIEW.
THIS AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE IMPACT FROM
BUILDING MORE PARKING STUDY, IT
DOESN'T INHIBIT INHIBIT THEM,
BUT IT DOES REQUIRE REVIEW.
PARKING POLICY IS INTENDED FOR
SINGLE USE.
PARKING HAS BEEN BUILT IN SOUTH
LAKE UNION.
AND EMPLOYER DOWNTOWN HAS PUT
UP ONE OF THE BIGGEST PARKING
COMPLEXES IN SEATTLE WITH 2300
PARKING STALLS, TWICE THE
PARKING, IN THE SECOND STORY
PARKING GARAGE AT PACIFIC
PLACE.
I AM CONCERNED THAT IT IS VERY
LIKELY THAT PEOPLE WILL
CONTINUE TO DRIVE.
WE ARE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT
PARKING POLICY THAT DISCOURAGES
THAT.
>> VERY GOOD.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED.
DISCUSSION CONTINUES.
COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO?
>> I REALLY LIKE YOUR INTENTION.
I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU ARE
GOING.
THIS CAN BE REVIEWED A LITTLE
BIT FURTHER.
THERE REALLY ARE CONCERNS. I
AND IS INTERESTED IN HOW THIS
IS GOING TO WORK.
AS A NEW ANALYSIS, AND SEE HOW
THAT WORKS.
I LIKE A LOT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
IT WAS SENT BY THE NEW
DEADLINE.
I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT SEE IT
YET
>> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES YOUR
POINT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT
YOU SECONDED, IN FACT.
THERE IS SOME APPETITE FOR
POSTPONING IT THERE MIGHT BE
VOTES TO GO UP OR DOWN.
LET US KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF
OUR MINDS.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME BUT I
WILL HAVE TO VOTE NO.
AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE SEPA
REVIEW PROCESS.
I HAD A CHANCE TO REACH OUT.
WE RECEIVED THE ROUGH ESTIMATE.
THERE COULD BE DELAYS IF THIS
AMENDMENT PASSES.
IF THIS AMENDMENT HAD BEEN IN
EFFECT, 120 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS
WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO
REVIEW, WHICH MEANS MORE DELAY.
155 PROJECTS WOULD HAVE COME
UP.
I AGREE WITH THE UPPER PREMISE
THAT THIS WOULD REDUCE WHAT WE
ARE ADDING, BUT I THINK WE
WOULD LOOK AT MAXIMUMS AS A
PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER,
FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE
POINT THAT 85% OF HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST TEN
YEARS HAS BEEN LUXURY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT.
THE KINDS OF HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE PROVIDING
MORE PARKING THAT IS NEEDED
UNDER THE LAW CLAIM TO BE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS,
THEY ARE LOOKING TO REDUCE COST
OF BUILDING HOUSING, BOTH TO
THE LOW INCOME HOUSING
DEVELOPER AND TO THE TENANT.
THIS AMENDMENT I BELIEVE IS
VERY UNLIKELY TO ADDRESS AND
IMPACT THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
WE ARE TRYING TO ALLOW FOR THE
PUBLIC TO MOVE TOWARD ANALYZING
THESE PROJECTS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, FROM THE
PROVISION OF UNNECESSARY
PARKING, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
DOES NOT EXIST RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL
THAT WE CAN USE TO CHANGE
PUBLIC POLICY AS IT RELATES TO
THE OVER PROVISION OF PARKING.
WE HAVE
TO BALANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AS WELL AS BALANCING NEED TO
IMPACT PUBLIC POLICY AS IT
RELATES TO PARKING DEVELOPING
AND THE USE OF SPACE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING.
SAY THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.
I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN
IN THE QUEUE, BUT I HAVE THIS
VIBE FROM A PHONE THAT YOU WANT
TO SPEAK.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR.
SAY THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT.
BUT I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST IT.
THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE
ARE BUILDING IS TOO MUCH, AND
WE SHOULD DRESS THAT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT
SHOULD BE THROUGH THE APPEAL
PROCESS, RATHER, I THINK WE
SHOULD REVISIT PARKING
MAXIMUMS, PERHAPS CONSIDER
LOWERING LOWERING THEM AND I
THINK THAT IS A SPECIFIC POLICY
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL RULES.
I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO APPEAL.
SAY THANK YOU, YOU CAME IN LOUD
AND CLEARLY.
COUNCIL MEMBER, CLOSING
COMMENTS?
ARE WE READY TO VOTE?
AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.
THE PARKING SPACES ISSUES MOVED
AND SECONDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, RAISE YOUR HAND.
SO I WILL GET ON THAT ONE.
TWO OF THE VOTES ARE IN FAVOR.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
OKAY, THE EMINENT FAILS.
THE AMENDMENT FAILS.
>>> I HEARD THE DESIRE TO HAVE
THE NEXT COUNCIL.
THIS COUNCIL SHOULD WAIT FOR
THE NEXT COUNCILS WHAT I'VE
HEARD.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE
WORKING AND CONTINUE TO DO OUR
JOBS. I AM MINDFUL OF THE
URGENT NEED OF NOT JUST HOUSING
AND STEWARDSHIP. THAT IS WHY
THE VALUE SYSTEM BY WHICH WE
HAVE ACTED UPON TODAY.
AND WHAT I WILL BE VOTING ON
TODAY.
FROM A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I HAVE HEARD STORIES ABOUT
LEGISLATION BEING DELAYED, FORT
LAWTON BEING DELAYED.
FOR THOSE OF USE THAT SEPA
PROCESS TO DELAY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THAT HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES.
AND IT ISN'T UNTIL YOU HAVE TO
LOOK YOUR MOTHER IN THE EYE,
AND STRUGGLE TO HELP HER FIND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT THERE IS A
PRICE TO BE PAID.
AND SOMETIMES IT'S THE CLOSEST
TO YOU.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I KEPT
IN MIND AS I WENT THROUGH THIS
PROCESS.
THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS THAT ARE DELAYED HAVE
CONSEQUENCES. THOSE ARE
CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE PAID BY
THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR
COMMUTE.
AND FOR ME THAT HAPPENS TO BE
MY PARENTS.
I THINK MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS
COUNCIL FOR HELPING ME THROUGH
THIS PROCESS, AND HOPEFULLY
úVOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS
LEGISLATION IN A FEW MINUTES .
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
PACHECO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I WANT TO SPEAK TO SOME OF
THE THINGS I'VE HEARD FROM
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
I AM CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE WHO
I BELIEVE ARE WELL-MEANING, AND
DO CARE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY
AND ENVIRONMENT, ARE NOT USING
THE SEPA PROCESS.
AND HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS BILL.
I THINK IT WAS CHARACTERIZED AS
COMMON SENSE SEPA REFORM.
WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, WE HAVE
NOT BEEN ABLE TO USE THIS
PROCESS TO ASSUAGE THOSE
CONCERNS.
PERHAPS THEY ARE NOT COMMON
SENSE.
AND THE DIALOGUE AROUND THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD BENEFIT FROM
MORE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE
PUBLIC.
THAT BEING SAID.
I HAVE ASKED CENTRAL STAFF TO
DO A DEEP DIVE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE
HEARD IS THAT THERE ARE POSITIVE
OUTCOMES FOR SEPA RESULTS.
SOME OF THOSE OUTCOMES ARE
BETTER PROJECTS . INCLUDING
PUTTING THE CITY IN A BETTER
POSITION TO DEFEND THOSE
PROJECTS WHEN IT GOES THROUGH
THAT SEPA HER REVIEW.
CENTRAL STAFF DID A REVIEW OF
THE 54 CASES THAT WERE AMENDED
OR REBOUNDED OVER THE LAST 10
YEARS.
AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THOSE
CASES IS THE TOWERS.
WHERE THE EXAMINER AMENDED THE
DECISION BASED ON LOADING DOCK
MANAGEMENT.
IT APPEARS THAT OF THE CASES.
25% TO 54 CASES THAT WERE
REVIEWED, AMENDED OR REMANDED
TO THE HEARING EXAMINER.
NONE OF THOSE CASES RESULTED IN
POSITIVE IMPACTS THROUGH THE
APPEAL PROCESS. NONE OF THEM
WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM APPEAL
IN THIS LEGISLATION.
THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS.
I DO REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PROJECT ACTION AND NON-ACTION
THAT MAY NOT BE APPEALABLE. OVER
SEVEN YEARS OF APPEALS, CENTRAL
STAFF ANALYSIS SHOWED TWO OF
THE 32 PROJECT PROPOSALS
APPEALED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO TAKE A SEPA UNDER
THIS NEW LEGISLATION.
UNDER THOSE CASES THE HEARING
EXAMINER RULED IN THE CITIES
FAVOR.
NOT IN THE APPELLANT FAVOR.
IN ONE OF THOSE CASES THE
APPELLANT WON THEIR CASE BASED
ON THE LAND USE INTERPRETATION.
NOT THE SEPA ISSUES.
THAT WAS ON THE PROJECT ACTIONS.
SEVEN YEARS OF APPEALS CENTRAL
STAFF ANALYSIS SHOWED FOUR OF
THE 22 ACTIONS WOULD POSSIBLY BE
SUBJECT TO A WAIVER OF APPEALS
UNDER THIS LAW.
IN 1-4 OF THOSE CASES IT COULD
STILL BE APPEALED TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARING BOARD.
I BRING THIS AS CONTEXT AND
TEXTURE OF A REVIEW OF THE LAST
SEVEN YEARS. TO ECHO COUNCIL
MEMBER SAWANT STATEMENT THAT A
LOT OF FOLKS ON BOTH SIDE HAVE
OVERPROMISED WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION WILL REQUIRE. I DO
NOT THINK IT IS GOING TO LIMIT
THE SEPA APPEALS.
AND I DO NOT THINK IT IS GOING
TO ELIMINATE SEPA APPEALS.
JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES
THAT I WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT
I'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC.
MANY CONSTITUENTS HAVE REACHED
OUT TO ME CONCERNED ABOUT THE
LACK OF ABILITY TO USE SEPA
APPEAL FOR ECONOMIC ISSUES.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL STILL
INCLUDE ECONOMIC ISSUES IN SEPA
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS.
BUT NOT ALLOW FOR APPEAL.
THIS GOES BEYOND WHAT THE STATE
ALREADY REQUIRES.
THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF
THE SEPA REVIEW ON ECONOMIC
ISSUES . THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAS CHOSEN
TO DO EVEN THOUGH THE STATE
DOES NOT REQUIRE IT.
LASTLY, SOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN
WRITING BECAUSE THEY'RE
CONCERNED THAT IT'S NOT BEING
FOLLOWED THE CODE WHEN IT COMES
TO THE TIMELINE OF SEPA
CONSIDERATION.
THEY PUBLISH THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN
COMBINATION WITH THE PERMITS.
AND SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE RETIREMENT OF
STCI OF PUBLISHING THEIR
REVIEW.
IT IS THE CITY'S PRACTICE ,
AND THAT MEANS A DETERMINATION
OF NONSIGNIFICANT NATION WAS
PUBLISH WITH THE MASTER USE
PERMIT.
THE CITY MUST WAIT UNTIL THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ASK BEFORE
PUBLISHING THE DETERMINATION.
THE CONCERN THAT WE ARE
DRAGGING OUT THE DETERMINATION
OF ANALYSIS ON THE SEPA
PROCESS UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT.
AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE GETTING
ALL OF THESE DECISIONS IN FAVOR
OF APPELLANTS.
WHEN THAT THAT IS IN CONFLICT
WITH THE STATE LAW. IT'S
ACTUALLY NOT TRUE.
BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE THAT THOSE
THINGS BE DONE TOGETHER.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER IF WE
BEEN ABLE TO USE THE PROCESS TO
DISPEL A LOT OF THE FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS THANK YOU FOR
INDULGING ME AND GOING THROUGH
SOME OF THE STUFF RIGHT NOW.
>> I THINK WE COULD PUT A
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION
TOGETHER NOW .
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD . ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS
? ANY CLOSING COMMENTS COUNCIL
MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> WITH THAT.
I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
I ALSO WANT TO THINK CENTRAL
STAFF.
FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC WE HAVE
AN IMPARTIAL RESEARCHERS AND
ANALYSTS TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES
AND THE FACTS.
AND THEY GIVE US THE FACTS ON
PRIOR APPEALS , AND THAT'S A
VERY HELPFUL.
I TAKE ANY APPEAL PROCESS VERY
SERIOUSLY.
EVEN WHEN WE HAVE SEEN THE
PROCESS ABUSED.
ANYONE WITH THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, AS AN
ATTORNEY.
AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THESE
ARE REASONABLE CHANGES. WE HAVE
LOOKED AT THESE FROM A VARIETY
OF PERSPECTIVES.
THE AMENDMENTS STILL MAKE GOOD
SENSE TO ME.
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT AS
WELL.
HAVING SAID THAT.
[ ROLL CALL ] ON THE PASSAGE OF
THE AMENDED BILL.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO ,
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT ,
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD ,
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA,
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN ,
PRESIDENT HARRELL .
>> THE BILL PASSES 8-0.
>>> PLEASE READ THE NEXT AGENDA
ITEM. AND I WILL SAY OF FEW
WORDS ABOUT .
>> I'M GOING TO SIGN UP .
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
O'BRIEN.
>>> BEFORE THE CLERK READS THE
NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 31911.
THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT WE GIVE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE AND
THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO.
HAVING SAID THAT WILL THE CLERK
READ THE AGENDA ITEM INTO THE
RECORD.
>>> A RESOLUTION OPPOSING
WASHINGTON INITIATIVE MEASURE
976.
AND URGING SEATTLE VOTERS TO
VOTE NO ON I-976 ON THE
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 GENERAL
ELECTION BALLOT .
>> I'M GOING TO MOVE IT AND
SECOND IT.
AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
I MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
31911.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ WILL YOU
PLEASE PRESENT THE ARGUMENT?
BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION
THAT WE WERE DOING PUBLIC
COMMENT FIRST ?
>> I THINK WE WILL HEAR FROM
THE COUNCILMEMBER FIRST.
WE COULD DO IT EITHER WAY? JUST
ONE SECOND.
I THINK WE'LL GO WITH
COUNCILMEMBER FIRST.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD AND PRESIDENT HARRELL.
>>> THIS IS ON THE INTRODUCTION
REFERRAL CALENDAR.
YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE THE COPY OF
THE RESOLUTION.
RESOLUTION 31911.
URGING SEATTLE VOTERS TO VOTE
NO ON I-976 . IF THIS
INITIATIVE PASSES IT WILL
CRIPPLE THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM AND THREATEN INVESTMENTS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
CONNECTED WASHINGTON, LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS, SOUND
TRANSIT, FAIRIES, RAIL, AND
FREIGHT MOBILITY.
INCLUDING PUBLIC SAFETY.
OUR REGION HAS GROWN
EXPONENTIALLY.
AND MUNICIPALITIES ARE WORKING
HARD TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMANDS
, PARTICULARLY TRANSPORTATION,
IN THE LINCOLN COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN HARD-
FOUGHT AND ARE THE IMPROVEMENT
OF PARTISAN WORK, AND HERE IN
OUR TRI-COUNTY REGION.
SOUND TRANSIT IS A VOTER
APPROVED, ACCOUNTABLE AUTHORITY
THAT PROVIDES MULTI MODAL
TRANSIT A CROSSED SNOHOMISH,
KING, AND PIERCE COUNTY.
THIS INITIATIVE IS FRAMED AS A
MONEY SAVER BY RETURNING TO A
$30 CARTEL.
IT WOULD REVERSE THE WILL OF
THE PEOPLE, INCREASE CONGESTION
, DELAY CONSTRUCTION , AND PUT
$4 BILLION OF STATE FUNDING AT
RISK.
THIS INITIATIVE TARGETS PUBLIC
FUNDING THAT PAYS FOR SENIORS,
VTERANS, CHILDREN, AND THE
DISABLED.
THE MOST VULNERABLE.
I-976 IS ON THE BALLOT FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.
AND I URGE US OUT OF VOTERS
AND MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN
VOTING NO ON THIS HARMFUL
INITIATIVE PRESIDENT HARRELL I
WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
READ A FEW COMMENTS INTO THE
RECORD.
AS YOU KNOW THERE IS A FOUR PAGE
RESOLUTION.
THERE ARE 11 KEY POINTS.
AND FOUR THAT I WANT TO READ
INTO THE RECORD FOR THE VIEWING
PUBLIC.
FIRST.
AS I-976 WOULD UNDERMINE
PROGRESS MADE BY THE CITY OF
SEATTLE IN BUILDING A
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM THAT RESPONDS TO THE
CHALLENGES IMPOSED BY THE
EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH, AND PAST
FAILURES TO BUILD A MASS
TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT COULD SERVE
THE NEEDS OF SEATTLE IN THE
21st CENTURY BY ELIMINATING
FUNDING BUS SERVICES, AND NON-
HIGHWAY SPENDING.
WHEREAS I-976 WOULD REPEAL
FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF
DISTRICTS IN SEATTLE AND 61
OTHER CITIES ACROSS WASHINGTON
STATE.
THAT IS LARGELY DEDICATED TO
IMPROVING SAFETY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE TO REDUCING
CROWDING AND EXPANDING ACCESS
TO THE BUS SERVICE.
I-976 WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE
FUNDING DEDICATED TO LOW INCOME
ACCESS AND ORCA PASSES TWO HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS, SCHOLARS, AND
INCOME AUDIBLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS.
I-976 IS INTENDED TO ELIMINATE
20 BILLION IN EXPANSION OF
LIGHT RAIL ALONG THE 2016 SOUND
TRANSIT MEASURE.
AS I SHARED, THERE WERE 11 AND I
PULLED FOUR THAT I THOUGHT WERE
VERY IMPORTANT.
NOT ONLY FOR MY COLLEAGUES, AND
THE PUBLIC.
AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL PASSES A RESOLUTION
31911.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ.
>> WITH ANY COLLEAGUES LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS?
WE ARE GOING TO HEAR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
I'M CHECKING TO SEE IF COUNCIL
MEMBERS CAN SPEAK AFTER?
>> IS THAT WHAT YOU PREFER?
BUT I AM FLEXIBLE BUT I DON'T
KNOW IF THE RULES ALLOW US TO
DO THAT.
RIGHT NOW.
WOULD BE A GREAT TIME WHILE I
AM GETTING A RULING TO HEAR
FROM ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> AS A NOTED . THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
PROVIDES 350,000 HOURS OF
SERVICE.
THAT IS A LOT OF HOURS OF
SERVICE. THAT HAS RESULTED IN
SEATTLE BEING ONE OF THE ONLY
CITIES IN THE NATION THAT HAS
SEEN IN INCREASE IN TRANSIT USE.
IN THEIR REGIONAL MEETING LAST
MONTH, I AM A MEMBER OF THAT
COMMITTEE.
KINNEY COUNTY STAFF SAID THAT
SEATTLE COULD LOSE HUNDRED
75,000 HOURS OF BUS SERVICE IN
2020.
THAT IS HALF OF THE SERVICE
FUNDED BY THE VOTER APPROVED
SEATTLE TRANSIT BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
ONE THIRD OF THE SEA LION
SERVICE IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE
BENEFIT DISTRICT.
I-976 WOULD HARM FUNDING FOR
LIGHT RAIL PROJECTS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE BRINGING
THIS A RESOLUTION FORWARD. IT
IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR
TRANSIT NEEDS HERE IN SEATTLE .
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD.
COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT WOULD YOU
BE OKAY TO SPEAK NOW AND THEN
WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ?
>> THANK YOU PRESIDENT HARRELL.
I WILL BE VOTING YES ON THIS A
RESOLUTION THAT URGES
WASHINGTON STATE OF VOTERS TO
VOTE NO ON I-976.
NOT ONLY WILL I-976 REDUCE OR
ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC
TRANSIT AT THE TIME THAT WE
NEED TO GREATLY ACCELERATE OUR
MEASURES. IT WOULD MAKE THE
EXISTING MEASURES MORE
REGRESSIVE. IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE
. WE ALSO HAVE TO NOTE THAT THE
REASON WHY THE RIGHT WING KEEPS
GETTING AN ECHO IS BECAUSE OF
THE BROKEN TAX SYSTEM. IT IS
THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.
IN ADDITION TO OPPOSING MEASURES
LIKE I-976.
WE NEED A STRONG LEADERSHIP TO
FIGHT FOR REVENUE SOURCES.
LIKE THE COALITION THAT FOUGHT
FOR THE HIGH INCOME TAX.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD AND I
SPONSOR THAT LEGISLATION , IT
HAS CLEAREDITS FIRST HURDLE IN
COURT.
WE NEED PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
MEASURES LIKE THAT. TO STOP THE
RIGHT-WING FROM GETTING AN ECHO
FOR REGRESSIVE MEASURES.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE STATE
OF VOTERS REJECT I-976.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
SAWANT.
TRENTON?
BUT THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.
I SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE DOING
FOR.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND THINGS TO OUR EASTERN
WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE.
WE FIND OURSELVES ON OPPOSITE
SIDES OF VARIOUS ARGUMENTS.
BUT IN THE TRANSPORTATION WORLD
WE ALL AGREE.
WE HAVE SUPPORTED LEGISLATION
TO IMPROVE STATE HIGHWAYS. I
BELIEVE EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN
WASHINGTON HAS RECEIVED
BENEFITS FIXING THEIR HIGHWAYS
THROUGH PREVIOUS WORK OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SENATOR
CURTIS KING.
A REPUBLICAN FROM YAKIMA THAT I
CAN WORK WITH TO REDUCE
CONGESTION HERE AND SUPPORT THE
HIGHWAYS FOR HIS CONSTITUENTS.
VOTERS IN OUR CITY WANT MORE
BUS SERVICE.
WE HAVE VOTED FOR LEVEES THAT
SUPPORT THAT.
AND I RECOGNIZE THAT IF I-976
PASSED THAT FUNDING FOR PAIN
FOR ORCA CARDS FOR SENIORS ,
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS , VETERANS
. I WOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER
THAT TO BE IN OPPOSITION TO
WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE CITY
TO MAKE TRANSPORTATION
AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR
ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
TRENTON.
COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO ?
>> I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
RESOLUTION. I WANT TO ECHO
SOMETHING THAT I'VE HEARD
CONSISTENTLY ABOUT OUR REGION
GROWING.
1.2 MILLION NEW JOBS, WE KNOW
WE NEED INVESTMENT TO KEEP ALL
OF THIS MOVING.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS A
RESOLUTION.
AND I LIKE TO GO ON THE RECORD
AND SAY THAT I THINK THAT I-976
IS MALARKEY .
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO .
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
BUT I THINK IT BEARS
REPEATING.
MANY FOLKS WHO ARE STRUGGLING
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF
THEIR CAR TABS.
AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE AN
UPSIDE DOWN TAX SYSTEM.
AS WE WORK TO SUPPORT I-976.
WE CALL TO RIGHT SIDE UP OUR
UPSIDE DOWN TAX SYSTEM.
WE HAVE TO HAVE REVENUE TO
INVEST IN TRANSPORTATION AND IN
OUR CRUMBLING BRIDGES.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS REVENUE TO
MAKE SURE THAT OUR ECONOMY
FUNCTIONS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALLOWING
FOR GOODS TO GET TO THE ONLY
DEEPWATER PORT ALONG THE
WESTERN STATES.
A MAJOR HUB OF TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT RELIES
ON US TO HAVE GOOD FUNCTIONING
ROADS.
WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT SOMEHOW
. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESSES HAVE
THE ABILITY TO COMMUTE. WE HAVE
NOT BUILT THE HOUSING THAT WE
NEED AND WE NEED THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM.
WE NEED TO RELY ON THIS REVENUE
THAT I-976 HELPS.
IF WE SEE THIS PASS WE MUST
OPPOSE I-976.
I WANT TO UNDERSCORE SOMETHING
. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT
THREATENING OUR ROADS AND
BRIDGES.
IT'S ABOUT TAKING AWAY THE VERY
FABRIC OF THE SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES SERVICES TO SENIORS ,
VETERANS, CHILDREN, AND THE
DISABLED.
I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO GET THE
WORD OUT THAT IT IS NO ON I-
976.
IT'S CRITICAL TO HAVE CLARITY
AND NOT CONFUSION. THANK YOU
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ FOR
UNDERSCORING OUR COMMITMENT TO
GET THE WORD OUT TO VOTE NO ON
I-976.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ? THAT
CONCLUDES COMMENTS FROM THE
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WE WILL PROVIDE EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR COMMENTS
FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK ON THE RESOLUTION.
THE TOTAL TIME ALLOTTED FOR
COMMENTS WILL BE 20 MINUTES.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED AND
ALTERNATING ORDER.
EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.
BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE SIGN UP IN
OPPOSITION OF I-976.
I WILL START OFF WITH THE
OPPOSITION. THEN I WILL GO TO
THE SUPPORT.
I WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR THE
SUPPORT AND I WILL GIVE THEM
EQUAL TIME.
WE COULD JUST DO TIMMONS.
YOU WILL BE CALLED BACK AFTER
WE HEAR FROM THE SUPPORTERS OF
THE RESOLUTION.
TIM EYMAN YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
BUT THIS IS A GOVERNMENT
RESOLUTION TELLING VOTERS HOW
TO VOTE ON A CITIZEN INITIATIVE.
IT IS ARROGANT AND IMPROPER USE
OF TAX DOLLARS.
VOTERS DO NOT LIKE POLITICIANS
TELLING THEM HOW THEY SHOULD
VOTE. THIS HAS NOT BEEN A
PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS IS BEEN A POLITICIAN
HEARING.
THIS MANIPULATION DOES NOT WORK
WITH THE INITIATIVE PROCESS.
EVERYONE IN THE STATE GETS TO
VOTE ON IT.
YOU CAN RANT AND RAVE ALL YOU
WANT.
YOUR VOTE COUNTS JUST THE SAME
AS EVERY OTHER VOTER IN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON.
IT DOES NOT SURPRISE ME THAT
THERE IS A PULL OUT THAT SHOWS
IF IT PASSES.
70% ACROSS THE STATE AND IT IS
LEADING IN SEATTLE.
52% OF SEATTLE VOTERS THAT ARE
IN FAVOR ARE NOT GOING BECAUSE
THEY LIKE ME.
THEY FIND THAT IT IS DISHONEST
TO BE TAXING PEOPLE ON THE
$10,000 CAR IF IT'S WORTH THE
25,000.
THE TAX BURDEN IS REACHING A
TIPPING POINT WHERE THEY ARE
REALIZING THAT PROPERTY TAXES
ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF.
THEY ARE STRUGGLING, THEY ARE
HAVING A TOUGH TIME.
THIS INITIATIVE COMES ALONG,
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAD FOR
2.5 YEARS A WAY TO FIX THIS
PROBLEM. TO SAY THAT A $10,000
CAR IS WORTH $10,000.
THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
FOR 2.5 YEARS VOTERS HAVE BEEN
SAYING DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS
PROBLEM AND THEY HAVE DONE
NOTHING.
WHEN THIS INITIATIVE QUALIFIED
IN JANUARY THEY HAD AN ENTIRE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO FIX THE
PROBLEM AND THEY DID NOT.
YOU COULD'VE PUT AN ALTERNATIVE
ON THE BALLOT AND THEY DID NOT.
THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING.
WHY IS IT THAT VOTING THIS
INITIATIVE DOWN. THAT SOMEHOW
THEY ARE GOING TO TURN AROUND
AND FIX IT NOW.
PEOPLE ARE GETTING RIPPED OFF.
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.
AND THE POLITICIANS ARE NOT
DOING A THING ABOUT.
THIS INITIATIVE IS THE ONLY WAY
THAT PEOPLE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM
AND GET RID OF THIS IS
DISHONEST TAX.
AND COME UP WITH A BETTER
SYSTEM THAT IS OF VOTER
APPROVAL.
>> ON THE SUPPORT SIDE.
MATTHEW LAYING.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THEN WE WILL GO TO KELSEY.
>> MY NAME IS MATTHEW LAYING, I
AM THE LEAD ORGANIZER OF THE
TRANSIT UNION.
THE COALITION HAS DECIDED THAT
I WILL BE THE ONLY PERSON
SPEAKING TODAY.
IF THERE IS ANY OBJECTION, THEY
WILL BRING IT UP.
I HAVE BEEN ON THIS CAMPAIGN
TRAIL FOR A YEAR.
I TESTIFIED IN OLYMPIA.
I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS INITIATIVE
FAILS.
IT WILL BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL TO
ALL PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON STATE.
BUS, BIKE, PEDESTRIAN, RAIL.
CUTS WILL BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL.
THEY USE ALL THOSE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION.
WORKERS WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF
THIS INITIATIVE.
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WILL
BE CUT AS WE STOP BUILDING
ROADS AND FIXING POTHOLES.
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I HAVE
BEEN HEARING THAT ENTIRE
COUNTIES MIGHT HAVE TO CUT
THEIR ENTIRE BUS SYSTEMS
BECAUSE THEY RELY SO HEAVILY ON
THE TRANSIT OF THE DISTRICT.
WE SUPPORT THE LEADERSHIP OF
THE COUNCIL. AND WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP OUR ORCA
OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM. AND THAT
WE KEEP THE TRANSPORTATION
EQUITY PROGRAM
TO BRING TRANSIT TO UNDER
SERVED POPULATIONS.
CURRENTLY 53% OF ALL CARBON
EMISSION AND OUR CITY IS COMING
FROM PASSENGER VEHICLES, AND
TRUCKS.
ALLOWING ANY CUTS TO BUS
SERVICES WOULD BE IN DIRECT
OPPOSITION TO OUR STATE
ADMISSION GOALS.
IN THAT THE TRANSIT RIDERS UNION
SUPPORT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL IN
DENOUNCING I-976.
PLEASE VOTE YES ON RESOLUTION
31911 .
>> KELSEY WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK?
DREW?
STEVE?
>> VOTE NO ON I-976 .
>> RACHEL BROWN?
>> JOYCE? I
POORLY DESCRIBE THE SEQUENCE OF
EVENTS.
I PUT THE OPPOSITION AT A
DISADVANTAGE.
I ASSUMED YOU WERE ALL SPEAKING
BECAUSE YOU HAD SIGNED UP.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT
WE GIVE TIM EYMAN ANOTHER
MINUTE.
THEN WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER MINUTE
TIM EYMAN?
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
LAYING OUT THE RULES.
AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
I THINK THE BASIC POINT THAT I
WANT TO MAKE.
IF IT WAS A PRIVATE COMPANY
THAT WAS GOUGING PEOPLE, TAKING
MORE MONEY THAN WHAT THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO.
THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SHUT THEM
DOWN.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT
TAKING MORE MONEY THAN THEY
SHOULD FROM THE TAXPAYERS.
ALL WE ARE GETTING IS EXCUSES.
YOU SAY DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S
DISHONEST OR ARTIFICIALLY
INFLATED.
WE ARE DEALING WITH THE STATE
THAT HAS A 3.5 WE ARE DEALING
WITH THE STATE THAT HAS A $3.5
MILLION SURPLUS THAT COULD
BACKFILL ANY EFFECTIVE
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
GET RID OF THE DISHONEST TAX
AND TRANSITION TO A SYSTEM THAT
IS MORE FAIR THEY HAVE TO GET
VOTER APPROVAL AND USE KELLY
BLUE BOOK.
SO IF A $10,000 CAR IS GOING TO
BE TAXED IT WILL BE TAXED AT A
$10,000.
THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.
WHAT I FIND INCONCEIVABLE YOU
CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT
PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY UPSET, AND
THEY ARE UPSET BECAUSE THEIR
ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT
ACKNOWLEDGING A PROBLEM.
INSTEAD YOU'RE SAYING JUST TAKE
IT BECAUSE WE ARE USING THE
MONEY ON GOOD STUFF.
MOST PEOPLE THINK IF IT IS A
DISHONEST YOU SHOULD BE
IMPOSING IT .
>> THANK YOU TRAN 20 .
>> WITH THE SUPPORTERS LIKE ONE
LAST BITE OF THE APPLE?
>> I DOES HAVE ONE MORE THING
TODAY TO SAY.
I WOULD HAVE TO PAY $450 IN CAR
TABS FOR MY NEW CAR.
I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE
TO DO THAT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT ACCESS TO
TRANSPORTATION IS A BIG MARKER.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
TRANSPORTATION YOU CANNOT GET
TO WORK OR AROUND THE CITY.
WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THESE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE IN OUR
CITY.
>> I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE'VE HAD AMPLE COMMENTS.
I'M GOING TO PREPARE THIS FOR A
VOTE.
>>> ALL IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING
RESOLUTION 31911.
OPPOSED?
THE RESOLUTION HAS PASSED.
>>> PLEASE READ THE NEXT AGENDA
ITEM INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM 3. CB 119288.
>> THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
CONTINUES TO COORDINATE OUTREACH
. I HAVE REMINDED THE MAYORS
OFFICE OF THE LETTER FROM MAY
14.
WHERE WE WERE URGED TO PASS
COUNCIL BILL FOR THE PROPOSED
HATE CRIME LAW.
SOME OF THE INITIAL
CONVERSATIONS THERE MAY BE SOME
RELATED WORK THAT TIES IN WITH
THE BUDGET.
CONSEQUENTLY I AM MOVING TO HOLD
COUNCIL BILL TRANTER WENT TO
THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON
MONDAY TRANTER WENT TO THE FULL
COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY,
NOVEMBER 25.
>> SO WE WANT TO HOLD THIS
AGENDA ITEM UNTIL NOVEMBER 25.
IS THERE SECOND?
ANY COMMENT?
ALL IN FAVOR?
ALL OPPOSED?
THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNTIL
NOVEMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE
HELD UNTIL NOVEMBER 25.
>> ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO BE
EXCUSED BEGINNING NEXT MONDAY,
OCTOBER 14 THROUGH JANUARY 27
OF 2024 PARENTAL LEAVE.
INCLUDING 12 WEEKS OF PARENTAL
LEAVE AND TWO WEEKS OF COUNSEL
RECESS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING YOU
ALL IN JANUARY .
>> I SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN LEGISLATE
SOMETHING INTO NEXT YEAR.
>> WHY DON'T WE JUST DO
PARENTAL LEAVE THROUGH THE END
OF THIS YEAR .
>> THIS IS HISTORY MAKING.
I AM GOING TO DO IT TILL
DECEMBER 16.
>> I CAN GO ALL THE WAY INTO
JANUARY?
>> AN EXCUSED ABSENCE.
>> IT WAS MORE OF AN
ANNOUNCEMENT APPARENTLY.
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE
COUNCIL AWARE THAT I WILL BE
TAKING LEAVE.
>> WE WILL LET THE RECORD
REFLECT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUEDA HAS ASKED FOR LEAVE.
AND WE WILL WORKED THROUGH THE
LOGISTICS OFF-LINE.
>> I WISH ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES
THE BEST OF LUCK THIS FALL.
INTO THOSE THAT ARE NOT COMING
BACK.
IT WAS AN HONOR TO WORK WITH
YOU.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT
YOU HAVE DONE.
IN MY TWO YEARS OF WORK.
I WILL BE BACK.
IF EVERYTHING GOES CORRECTLY
FOR POTENTIALLY A BUDGET VOTE
OR TWO.
AND THE END OF NOVEMBER.
SPOKE IT IS BEEN MY PLEASURE
WORKING WITH YOU.
AND I WILL REACH OUT TO.
AND I WILL SEND YOU A MESSAGE
SAYING COMING BACK WHEN THE
BABY IS ASLEEP SO THAT WE CAN
TALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE GOING
WITH THE BUDGET.
I APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR STAFF
GIVING US YOUR PRIORITIES.
YOU WILL NOT BE OUT OF THE LOOP
VERY FAR .
>>
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT MY
PRIORITY IS BEFORE HEADING OUT
ON FAMILY LEAVE.
NO GUARANTEES ABOUT BEING ABLE
TO COME BACK.
I AM GRATEFUL THAT THE COUNCIL
RULES WERE AMENDED.
AND THAT IF ANYBODY, THAT IF
ANYBODY WANTED TO USE FAMILY
LEAVE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE
TO DO SO.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU
ALL SOON.
>> WITH THAT WE STAND
ADJOURNED.
EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT REST OF
THEIR DAY.