>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.
IT HAS BEEN A WHILE. TODAY IS
OCTOBER 10th, THE MEETING OF TH
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL. I AM
CALLING TO ORDER. WILL GOVERNOR
PLEASE CALL ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD?
COUNCILMEMBER ANDREW LEWIS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SARA NELSON.
COUNCILMEMBER, SARA NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER,
ALEX PEDERSEN.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS.
>> PRESENT.
>> LISA HERBOLD?
>> PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL PRESIDEN
DEBORAH JUAREZ.
>> I AM PRESENT.
>> NINE PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE BEGIN,
IF THERE IS AN OBJECTION,
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT,
HAS TO LEAVE EARLY TODAY. WE
WOULD LIKE HER TO BE EXCUSED,
AFTER I BELIEVE AFTER I'M WRONG
AFTER ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR, TO
BE EXCUSED. IS THERE ANY
OBJECTION TO COZUMEL OR KSHAMA
SAWANT, TO LISTEN TO TODAY'S
COUNSEL MEETING EARLY? OKAY.
NOT HEARING AN OBJECTION,
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT, YO
ARE INDEED EXCUSED WHEN YOU LET
US KNOW WHEN YOU ARE HEADING
OUT. I'M GUESSING THAT IS IN
ABOUT HALF AN HOUR, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YES, ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU,
PRESIDENT.
>> I JUST WANT TO REMIND
EVERYBODY, WITH THOSE FOLKS THA
ARE CALLING IN, THE ROLLCALL
ORDER TODAY ON TODAY'S VOTE, WE
ARE GOING TO START WITH
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD, THE
ANDREW LEWIS, TAMMY MORALES,
TERESA MOSQUEDA, SARA NELSON,
ALEX PEDERSEN, KSHAMA SAWANT,
AND DAN STRAUSS. THEN, MYSELF.
ALSO, COUNCILMEMBER AYE, WILL
NOT BE HERE WITH KSHAMA SAWANT
. THAT IS THE ROLLCALL. THAT IS
WHAT THE ROLLCALL ORDER IS
TODAY. WE USUALLY DO THAT FOR
COUNSEL BRIEFINGS, BUT WE DO
THAT ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD, HAS
A SIGNATURE TODAY. IT WE ARE
CLEANING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER,
2023, TO BE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AWARENESS MONTH IN SEATTLE.
RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 19th AS
PURPLE THURSDAY. WOULD YOU
PLEASE LEAVE US REGARDING THE
PROCLAMATION?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. I'M ASKING FOR YOUR
SIGNATURES ON A PROCLAMATION,
RELATED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AWARENESS MONTH. WE ARE LOOKIN
AT BRIEFINGS MEETINGS. WE ARE
NOT HAVING THAT MEETING THIS
WEEK. INSTEAD, WE ARE COLLECTIN
SIGNATURES TODAY. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN
SEATTLE, IS RECOGNIZED ON
OCTOBER 19th. THE MONTH IS NICE
ALL MONTH. RECOGNIZING OCTOBER
19th AS PURPLE THURSDAY. THE
PROCLAMATION ITSELF, WAS DRAFTE
BY THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT. THE MAYOR IS
CONCURRING. MY OFFICE CIRCULATE
A PROCLAMATION TO ALL COUNSEL
OFFICES LAST WEDNESDAY. THE
YEAR'S THEME OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH THIS
YEAR, IS THAT EVERYONE KNOWS OF
SOMEONE. THIS THEME ILLUSTRATES
THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC
AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION.
THIS IS SINCE THE EFFECTS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARE
FAR-REACHING. IN WASHINGTON, 41
.4% OF WOMEN, AND 31% OF MEN,
EXPERIENCE INTIMATE PARTNER
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. THE
EXPERIENCE ENTER PARTNER
STOCKING IN THEIR LIFETIMES. WE
HAVE FOLKS THAT ARE WITH US TO
ACCEPT TODAY'S PROCLAMATION. I
THINK MADAM PRESIDENT, I'M
ASSUMING THAT YOU WILL
FACILITATE, ALONG WITH OUR CITY
CLERK, THE PROCESS FOR
ACKNOWLEDGING THE WILLINGNESS O
MY COUNSEL COLLEAGUES TO SIGN
THE PROCLAMATION. PERHAPS AFTER
THAT, WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE
CODIRECTOR OF THE POLICY FOR
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE
COALITIONS, AND I BELIEVE WE
HAVE HSD HERE AS WELL, WHO ARE
HELPING TO ACCEPT THE
PROCLAMATION. I WILL PAUSE. I
WILL DEFER TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO DO
THAT. IT'S RIGHT NOW, I WANT TO
OPEN THE FLOOR. COUNCILMEMBER
LISA HERBOLD, TALKED ABOUT THE
PROCLAMATION. RIGHT NOW, I'M
GUESSING IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUE
WOULD HAVE ANY COMMENTS, OR
ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE T
ADD, REGARDING THE PROCLAMATION
THAT COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD
HAS IN FRONT OF US TODAY. I DO
NOT SEE ANY HANDS UP. I WOULD
LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH, AND
WHAT WE DO WITH THIS DEDICATION
I REMEMBER THE DAYS WHERE I WAS
A YOUNG LAWYER, WHEN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE WASN'T EVEN CONSIDERED
A MISDEMEANOR. IT WAS CONSIDERE
DOMESTIC, AND THERE FOR, NOBODY
RESPONDED. THERE WERE NOT UNIT
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THAT
DAY. NOW, WE HAVE THAT. YOU
BRING THIS FORWARD. THE PEOPLE
THAT WORK WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENC
VICTIMS, VICTIMS OF SEXUAL
TRAFFICKING, ALL THOSE ISSUES,
THEY COME TOGETHER. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THAT,
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD, TO
BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION
OF SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, AND
THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WORDS BEFOR
I MOVE ON? ALL RIGHT. WHAT I'M
GOING TO DO NOW, I'M GOING TO
ASK THE CLERK TO DO A ROLLCALL
OF WHO WOULD LIKE THEIR
SIGNATURE FIXED TO THE
PROCLAMATION. CAN YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE
PROCLAMATION CLAIMING OCTOBER
23rd TO BE OCTOBER AWARENESS
MONTH IN SEATTLE, AND
RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 19th, AS
PURPLE THURSDAY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD?
>> YES. COUNCILMEMBER ANDREW
LEWIS? COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY
MORALES? COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SARA NELSON.
ALEX PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS ?
>> YES.
>> MADAME CHAIR DEBORAH JUAREZ?
>> YES.
>> THIS WILL BE ADDED TO THE
PROCLAMATION.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL SUSPEND TH
RULES, TO ALLOW ARGUS TO ACCEPT
THE PROCLAMATION, AND PROVIDE
COMMENTS. NOT SEEING ANY
OBJECTIONS, THE ROLES ARE
SUSPENDED. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED I
ORDER TO PRESENT THE
PROCLAMATION. OF COURSE, IF
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS, TO
ALLOW ARGUS TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD,
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD.
>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
>> THANK YOU.
>> HELLO, TO MEMBERS OF THE CIT
COUNCIL. I'M ENDING GENDER-BASE
VIOLENCE. WE HAVE LEADS IN OVER
30 COMMUNITY PLACED CULTURE
SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS HERE IN
THE COUNTY, ALL WORKING TOWARDS
GENDER EQUITY, AND AN END TO
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE. THIS IS
PART OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE.
I'M TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE
OCTOBER IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AWARENESS MONTH CONTRACT TO MAK
PERSISTENT AND PERVASIVE
NATURE'S OF ABUSES OF POWER THA
CONTINUE TO THRIVE IN OUR
SOCIETY. AS THE PROCLAMATION
STATES, MASSIVE VIOLENCE IS A
PATTERN OF COURSE OF BEHAVIORS
THAT SOMEONE USES TO MAINTAIN
POWER, AND CONTROL OVER OUR
PARTNER. LIKE OTHER FORMS OF
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE, THIS IS
ROOTED IN RIGID GENDER ROLES,
RACISM, SEXISM, HETERO SEXISM,
AND OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION.
IF HUGE PORTIONS OF SEATTLE
RESIDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED WITH
READING THE PROCLAMATION, ARE
EXPERIENCING ABUSE IN THEIR
LIFETIMES, IT HAS NO BODY IMMUN
FROM ITS FAR-REACHING IMPACT.
MANY OF US KNOW PEOPLE IN OUR
LIVES WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHETHER THEY
HAVE SHARED THAT WITH US OR NOT
MANY FOLKS HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY
THIS ISSUE. DESPITE EFFORTS AND
CAMPAIGNS TO ELEVATE THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, IT STILL TAKES
ENORMOUS COURAGE FOR SURVIVORS
TO REACH OUT, AND SPEAK OUT
ABOUT ABUSE. THEY OFTEN TAKE
INCREDIBLE RISKS IN DOING SO.
SURVIVORS DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR
COURAGEOUS DISCLOSURES OF ABUSE
MET WITH A ROBUST NETWORK OF
WELL RESOURCED COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES. THEY CAN CALL UPON
THEM WHEN THEY NEED SUPPORT.
THESE COMMUNITY ADVOCATES NEED
SURVIVORS WHERE THEY ARE AT,
BOTH LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY
MEETING SURVIVORS AT COURT
HEARINGS, WAITING ROOMS COMES U
WHEREVER THEY ARE HEALING FROM
ABUSE. THE COALITION IS HONORED
TO SUPPORT A DYNAMIC AND STRONG
COMMUNITY OF PROVIDERS IN
SEATTLE, WHO SUPPORT SURVIVORS
EVERY DAY. THEY ARE REACHING OU
FOR SUPPORT. IT IS CRUCIAL THAT
ALONG WITH HIS PROCLAMATION,
SEATTLE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
PRIORITIZE PROGRAMS THAT
PRIORITIZE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
WE ARE PROUD TO STAND WITH
MEMBER PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC
OFFICIALS LIKE YOURSELVES, AS W
WORK COLLECTIVELY TOWARDS THIS
GOAL. ALSO, TOWARDS CREATING
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE FREE FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD FOR
YOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP IN
THIS AREA, AND TO ALL MEMBERS O
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL FOR
MAKING THIS ISSUE A PRIORITY
TODAY. WE APPRECIATE THIS
IMPORTANT ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND
YOUR ONGOING LEADERSHIP ON
BEHALF OF SURVIVORS IN OUR
COMMUNITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I SEE
WE HAVE A HAND UP. COUNCILMEMBE
DAN STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRETTY THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
LISA HERBOLD, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD TODAY. I CAN TELL WE
SPENT TIME WITHIN THE
COMMUNITIES IN THIS PAST
WEEKEND. MOURNING THE LOSS OF
SOMEONE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEE
TAKEN FROM US BECAUSE OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. TAKING THE
TIME AS A COMMUNITY TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT MORE WE NEEDED
TO DO TO SEE THE WARNING SIGNS.
NOT TO GO MORE ON THE RECORD,
BUT I'M SAYING IT REALLY TAKES
MORE THAN ALL OF US. TOO MANY
GOOD PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TAKEN FRO
US.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU ARE
LOOKING AT THE COALITION OF
ENDING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE.
YOU ARE BASICALLY THE FRONT LIN
OF WORK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THIS ISSUE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IS FRONT AND CENTER. WOMEN AND
CHILDREN GET HURT FIRST AS WE
KNOW. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR ALL
OF MY COLLEAGUES TO LOADING YES
TO THE PROCLAMATION. WITH THAT
WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC
COMMENT. AT THIS TIME, WE ARE
GOING TO OPEN THE HYBRID, AS WE
DO. THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THA
WE HAVE 14 REMOTE SPEAKERS. WE
HAVE FIVE IN PERSON SPEAKERS.
CORRECT?
>> I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK TH
PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AS WE
SPEAK GRADE
>> IT IS GOOD TO START WITH IN
PERSON SPEAKERS. THESE ARE SOME
FIRST-TIME COLLARS. AGAIN, THER
WILL BE A 10 SECOND NOTICE TO
WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS. I HATE T
HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF. TWO
MINUTES, THEN YOU GET A 10
SECOND WARNING. CAN YOU PLEASE
DO THE PUBLIC COMMENT RECORDING
FOR THOSE WATCHING AND CALLING
IN? THANK YOU.
>> IT IS NOT PLAYING FOR ME. I
WILL KEEP WORKING ON THAT. THE
RULES ARE BASIC. I CAN PRETTY
MUCH SAY THEM. IT WILL BE NICE
TO HEAR IT AGAIN. IF YOU CAN'T
GET IT GOING, I WILL SHARE WHAT
WE NEED TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE FOR
THAT.
>> WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT MIS
WILLIAMS, WHO IS NOW THE VOICE
OF SEATTLE.
>> WE SHOULD KNOW BY NOW. IT WA
ALL ABOUT THE OPINION. YOU ARE
SHOWING RESPECT FOR YOUR
SPEAKING TO THE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA. WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE
PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ANY
INDIVIDUAL. WE ARE LOOKING AT
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE FREE TO
DISAGREE. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
BASED ON ANYONE'S RACE OR
ETHNICITY. WE ARE LOOKING AT
ALL THE ROLES THAT WE ARE
LOOKING FROM KINDERGARTEN. BE
KIND, BE NICE, LISTEN, AND IF
YOU DON'T AGREE, THAT IS OKAY.
WITH THAT, BESIDES THE 10 SECON
WARNING, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE
TO CUT YOU OFF, I THINK WE ALL
KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE. WE ARE
LETTING YOU START. CALL THE
NAMES OF THE FOLKS THAT WE HAVE
IN CHAMBERS.
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
MARJORIE WISHART. THEY ARE
TRYING TO RALLY FOR THE
DECEASED. THIS IS AS FAR AS THE
WOMAN THAT GOT HIT BY THE CAR.
THIS IS ALL WITH THE COP HURRIE
I'M VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT
ALL THE STUFF THAT HAS BEEN SAI
AND DONE. WE ARE STILL AT SQUAR
ONE. I'M TRYING TO LOOK, BUT I
HAVEN'T SEEN ONE THING BEING
CHANGED. WE HAVE A POLICE
COMMISSION, AND ADVISORY BOARD.
WE ARE INSPECTING THE GENERAL
OFFICE OF POLICE BRUTALITY. THI
INCLUDES SMOG. GOD ONLY KNOWS
WHAT ELSE IS HERE DID YOU SO
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIX THE
PROBLEM. WE HAVE THREE OFFICERS
RIGHT NOW OVER IN TACOMA. THIS
IS OVER THE KILLING OF MARY
ELLIS. WE ARE STILL SEEING
PEOPLE PROTESTING IN THE
STREETS. WE HAVE ONE LADY FROM
THE WEST PRECINCT.
>> WHAT ABOUT OTHERS? EXCUSE ME
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS? WE ARE I
THE PAPERWORK. WE SHOULD HAVE
SEEN LOTS OF PEOPLE, THINKING W
SHOULD HAVE DONE WHAT THEY DID.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE
DECEASED. THIS IS THE REASON
I'M REALLY SPEAKING OUT. THIS I
A DISGRACE TO MY INTEGRITY.
THOSE WERE MEN LAUGHING AND
JOKING. THEY SAID WE WEREN'T
MAKING A JOKE OUT OF THAT.
$11,000. YOU CAN'T PAY ME ENOUG
FOR ALL OF THE INFRACTIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED SINCE THE
NAME POLICE. GO STUDY THAT
VARIED
>> NEXT SPEAKER, RYAN DONAHUE.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWIN
ME TO SPEAK TODAY. I'M THE CHIE
ADVOCACY OFFICER AT FREE HABITA
FOR HUMANITY, HERE AT THE KING
COUNTY OFFICES. THEY ARE TRYING
TO AMEND THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN
TO INCORPORATE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES. THIS IS A TIMING,
PROCESS, AND A POLICY
STANDPOINT. WE HAVE ALL EYES ON
THE CITY BUDGET RIGHT NOW.
TRYING TO DO THIS AT THE SAME
TIME PRETTY SHORT CHANGES, HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO
GIVE THIS A LITTLE ATTENTION
THAT IT DESERVES. TRANSPORTATIO
IMPACT FEES ARE EVENTUALLY GOIN
TO BECOME A THING. IT DESERVES
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A FULL AND
FRANK DISCUSSION. NOT A SIDE
DISCUSSION DURING THE BUDGET
CYCLE. IT JUST MAKES MORE SENSE
TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT
IS CURRENTLY ALREADY SCHEDULED
FOR THE LAND USE COMMITTEE AT
THE END OF NOVEMBER. FROM A
PROCESS STANDPOINT, WE ARE
CONCERNED. THIS IS LOOKING AT
THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE THE
SUPPORT. THE PROCESS THAT THEY
WENT THROUGH, SO OVER 20
DIFFERENT HEARINGS, AND IS THE
RESULT OF OVER A YEAR OF DEBATE
THIS HAPPENED DURING THE HOUSIN
PHONE PERIOD DID THIS IS A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STREAMLINING
THE PROCESS, AND PUSHING THROUG
A POTENTIAL FEE ON HOUSING,
WHILE EVERYONE IS FOCUSED ON TH
BUDGET. LASTLY, FROM A POLICY
STANDPOINT, WE ARE CONCERNED.
THIS IS A FEE THAT WOULD BE
IMPOSED ON HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
DURING THE BUILDING SLUMP, AND
THE HOUSING CRISIS. THE FEE
WOULD NOT EVEN BE GOING TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LIKE MHA
DOES. IT HAS MORE EXTENSIVE
HOUSING TO PAY FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. IN FERMENTING FEES ON
HOW TO DEFUND THESE
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. SOME O
WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN
ALLOCATED FUNDING. ONLY STIFLIN
HOUSING PRODUCTION AT THE TIME
WHEN WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE
HOUSING. WE AT HABITAT, EXPECT
THE NEED FOR MORE TRANSPORTATIO
FUNDING. WE BELIEVE IT IS BAD
TIMING TO DO THIS IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE BUDGET CYCLE, AS WE ARE
NOW. WE NEED TO DeLAY THIS, AND
RECONSIDER THE REPUTATION FOR
THE REVENUE STRATEGY WHERE WE
CAN FOCUS ON TRANSPORTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TIME.
>> NEXT SPEAKER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. CAN
YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? IS THIS
OKAY?
>> YES.
>> IN AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. I
CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT
RESOLUTION. CURRENTLY WRITTEN,
WOULD GIVE PREFERENCE THROUGH
TRAFFIC IN OUR COMMUNITIES. I A
A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SIX. I
LIVE IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING
RIGHT NEXT TO A TRUCK ROUTE.
THIS IS DUE TO THE CURRENT
ZONING. A LIST OF APARTMENT
HOLDINGS. THIS IS BUILT DURING
HIGH-TRAFFIC ROADS. I'M VERY
CONCERNED THAT THE BILL THAT WA
CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WOULD NOT
ALLOW OUR CITY TO IMPLEMENT THE
TYPES OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
THAT ARE NECESSARY TO GET US TO
VISION ZERO. CURRENT
RESOLUTIONS, ARE THE CAUSE FOR
GIVING THE GREAT ADVISORY BOARD
VETO POWER OVER THE PROPOSED
DESIGN CHANGES. THEY MIGHT
DECREASE THE WIDTH OF THESE
TRUCK ROUTES. THEY HAVE LOFTY
GOALS FOR SAFETY ON OUR STREETS
THIS IS FROM THE YEARS TO COME.
THEY NEED TO HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO IMPLEMENT
PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THEY NEED
TO MAKE OUR STREETS SAFER. WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TRYING
TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT. WE
NEED TO HAVE MORE SAFETIES FOR
EVERYONE ELSE. THERE IS A LOT O
US WHO SEE THIS VISION OF HAVIN
VERY EFFICIENT ROLE OF FREIGHT,
AND SAFE STREETS FOR EVERYONE.
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT AND
FIND A RESOLUTION. THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, MEREDITH
MORTIMER.
>> HELLO. I'M HERE TO SPEAK FRO
ADVANCING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEES TODAY. ESPECIALLY ON THIS
VERY RUSHED TIMELINE. THERE HAS
BEEN NO COVERAGE TO THE
BUSINESSES AND PEOPLE WILL BE
SUBJECT TO THESE FEES. THIS IS
STARK CONTRAST TO THE MULTI-YEA
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS USED TO
DEVELOP AND ADOPT THE MHA FEES
FROM A FEW YEARS AGO. AS OF
TODAY, THERE WAS NO PUBLIC
MEETINGS OR OFFERS TO COMMENT.
APPARENTLY, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN
UPDATED SINCE FEBRUARY. THERE I
NO DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH SPECIFI
CODE LANGUAGE TO REVIEW. EVEN
THE PUBLISHED AGENDA FROM THIS
VERY MEETING, DOESN'T MAKE ANY
REFERENCE TO THIS ISSUE. THEY
AREN'T EVEN WAITING FOR THE
PENDING HEARING EXAMINERS TO
LOOK AT THE SEATBELT. THIS IS A
SIGNIFICANT COST TO ALL
CONSTRUCTION TYPES. THESE FEES
CANNOT SIMPLY BE ABSORBED INTO
THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT. THEY
WILL RESULT IN A STEEPER DROP
OFF FROM NEW PROJECTS IN THIS
CITY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. MY
COMPANY IS PROPOSING
REDEVELOPMENT VACANT SITES IN A
LITTLE SAIGON NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY HAVE GROWN FOR RETAIL. THI
IS NOT FULLY ENTITLED. THEY HAV
BUILDING PERMITS. THEY HAVE MAD
$20 MILLION IN MHA FEES. ALMOST
$25,000 PER APARTMENT. THIS IS
KNOWN, AND IN OUR BUDGET. THIS
PROJECT WILL LOSE ITS FINANCING
AND WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD IF TH
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE HAS
BEEN PASSED DID WE WILL ADD $2
MILLION TO THE COST OF THE
APARTMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, ONE O
THE RETAIL SPACES IS A DESIGNED
TO BE A SMALL, 1500 SQUARE FOOT
RESTROOM. THE IMPACT FOR THE
SPACE WOULD BE $84,000. THIS IS
MORE THAN A YEAR'S WORTH OF THE
TENANTS RENT. I ALSO WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT IF OUR BUILDING
WAS A LIFE SCIENCE OR MEDICAL
OFFICE BUILDING OF THE SAME
SIZE, THE IMPACT HE WOULD A
WHOPPING $40 MILLION. IN
ADDITION TO MHA FEES. WE SEE
THESE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS SHOULD
NOT BE RUSHED THROUGH. THANK
YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, KEVIN
TROUT.
>> HELLO, HELLO. YOU CALLED ME
A LITTLE BIT FLAT-FOOTED TODAY.
I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT
RESOLUTION 3297. I HAD A WHOLE
BUNCH OF STUFF WRITTEN OUT. I'M
MAKING IT UP ON THE FLY. BEAR
WITH ME AS I HOPEFULLY GET
STRUCTURED AND USEFUL PUBLIC
COMMENT IN THIS MOMENT. I REALL
APPRECIATE WHAT I AM LOOKING AT
AS THE INTENT BEHIND THIS
RESOLUTION. INDUSTRIAL AREAS AR
REALLY CHALLENGED. THEY HAVE
BEEN FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.
THEY ARE CLINICAL TO THE PEOPLE
IN THE AREAS IN THE CITY. I
THINK WE CAN DO TO BE GOOD
STEWARDS OF THESE CHALLENGING
TIMES, AND OF THESE AREAS, IS
ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. I WOULD
HOPE THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH A
COMPROMISE THAT ADDRESSES THE
INEQUITY THAT THE CHANGE HAS
BROUGHT. CHANGE HAPPENS. RECENT
ECONOMIC TIMES HAVE NOT BEEN
JUST WARFARE. THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT I DO THINK THAT WE AS A
CITY SHOULD BE ADDRESSING.
HOWEVER, I SEE THE CURRENT
LANGUAGE OF THIS RESOLUTION. I
KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN TAKEN IN
FOR MORE CONSIDERATION. I
APPRECIATE THAT. I SEE THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THIS
RESOLUTION. IT WORRIES ME. THES
AREAS ARE CHANGING. WE DO NEED
TO BE REALLY GOOD STEWARDS OF
THAT. WE NEED TO HAVE LANGUAGE
THAT PRIORITIZES THINGS SUCH AS
TRAFFIC. I THINK IT MISSES THE
LARGE IMPACT ANGLE OF WHAT THIS
IS TRYING TO BE. I APPRECIATE
THE FACT THAT WE ARE TAKING SOM
TIME TO SLOW DOWN AND CONSIDER
THIS. I DO THINK IT IS POSSIBLE
TO HAVE A GOOD COMPROMISE THAT
WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. I WISH WE
HAD DEDICATED FREIGHT LANES, AN
DESICCATED TRAIN LANES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH.
>> ARE NEXT IN PERSON SPEAKER,
IS LAUREN ERICKSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
LARS ERIK SAID. ON BEHALF OF TH
NEW 2400 MEMBERS OF THE SEATTLE
METRO CHAMBER, I URGE YOU TO
REJECT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEES. OUR REGION IS IN THE MIDS
OF THE HOUSING CRISIS, AND NOW
IS NOT THE TIME TO ADD COST TO
HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENTS. NEW
HOUSING PERMIT INTAKES, ARE
DROPPING AT AN ALARMING RIGHT.
IMPACT FEES WOULD FURTHER DETER
NEWS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
DEEPENING THE CRISIS. EVERY NEW
UNIT HAS AN IMPACT. TO ENSURE
NEW HOUSING IS AFFORDABLE, WE
KNOW MORE MUST BE BUILT. THE
SEATTLE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
ACTIVELY SUPPORTS POLICIES THAT
LEAD TO MORE HOUSING, MAKE IT
LESS EXPENSIVE, AND SERVE THOSE
WHO NEED IT THE MOST. FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE HAVE THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
LET'S WORK ON THE BUILDING
POLICIES THAT WORK ON THE GAP.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS OUR LAST IN PERSON
SPEAKER. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO
REMOTE SPEAKERS. FIRST REMOTE
SPEAKER, IS RIGHT HERE.
>> CAN FOLKS HEAR ME OKAY?
>> I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD.
>> YOU CAN. FANTASTIC.
>> THAT AFTERNOON.
COUNCILMEMBERS, ON THE DIRECTOR
OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. I'M HERE
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
ADVANCING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEES ON THIS VERY SHORT
TIMELINE. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEES ARE A SIGNIFICANT NEW COST
TO ALL CONSTRUCTION TYPES. THIS
IS ESPECIALLY FROM NEW HOUSING.
WE HAVE A NEW HOUSING CRISIS.
THEY ARE ADDING ADDITIONAL
$4800-$6800 PER UNIT TO A
MIDRISE BUILDING. A LOWRISE
BUILDING, GETS MORE THAN $8000
PER UNIT. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO
TEXT THE PRODUCT THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO CREATE MORE OF. NEW
APARTMENT APPLICATIONS ARE DOWN
90% FROM 2020. THIS NEW LACK OF
SUPPLY WILL DRIVE UP COSTS. THI
IMPACT FEE WILL BE ADDED AS A
NEW FEE FOR RENTERS. THIS WILL
GREATLY EXACERBATE OUR
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. A RECENT
STUDY BY THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, FALMOUTH
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES,
SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE COST
OF HOUSING. AMOUNTING TO
ANYWHERE BETWEEN 16% TO 18% OF
THE MEDIAN HOME PRICE, DEPENDIN
ON LOCATION. WE CAN REDUCE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, AND
TENDER HOUSING PRODUCTION. IN
CLOSING, I TRUST THAT YOU ARE
NOT MOVING THIS FROM THE
INTRODUCTORY CALENDAR. THIS IS
FOR A FULL COUNCIL VOTE. THIS I
THE WRONG APPROACH AT THE WRONG
TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION TODAY.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KYLE
JACOBSON.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU. I WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK ON RESOLUTION
302097. THE STATUS QUO ON OUR
STREETS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
RADICAL. IN THIS STATUS QUO,
PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, AND
DRIVERS, ARE KILLED AND INJURED
BY MOTORISTS THAT SHOULD SHAME
US DEEPLY. FURTHER PEOPLE, THE
PERFECTLY AND HISTORICALLY COME
IN THESE COMMUNITIES OF COLOR,
ARE HARMED BY KILL TYPE
SITUATIONS. OUR CONTINUED
RELIANCE ON AUTOMOBILES IS
GETTING US TO A STARTLING
CLIMATE OF CATASTROPHE. WELL,
MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC STASIS
ACTIONS, SUCH AS LAKE WASHINGTO
BOULEVARD, PRIORITIZE THE SAME
TWO TIME MACHINE THAT IS CAUSIN
SO MUCH HARM. WE KNOW THE
SOLUTIONS TO ALL OF THESE
PROBLEMS. THEY INVOLVE
PRIORITIZING AND MOVING PEOPLE
INTO SAFE, CARBON MINIMIZING
WAYS. THEY INVOLVE RECONFIGURIN
OUR STREETS. THEY NECESSARILY
INVOLVE INCONVENIENCING DRIVERS
AND MAY COME AT A COST. SO BE
IT. RESOLUTION 30297. THIS
SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS
IMPERATIVE FOR ALL OF US. THANK
YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JONATHAN
I SEE YOUR MUTED. CAN YOU PRES
STAR SEX PLEASE?
>> SORRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> THIS IS THE TRANSPORTATION
FROM THESE IMPACT FEES. AS WE
ALL KNOW, WE HAVE A HOUSING
CRISIS. WE HAVE A MORE RECENT
COMBINATION OF THE INCREASING
LABOR MATERIAL COSTS. WE ARE
INCREASING PERMANENT REVIEW
TIMELINES. WE HAVE INCREASING
INTEREST RATES. THEY HAVE NEVER
BEEN HIGHER. WE NEED TO REDUCE
COSTS FOR HOUSING IF WE WANT TO
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? NOT INCREAS
THEM. WE HAVE PRODUCT LIST FROM
2017, 2018, AND A COUPLE OF THE
PROJECT HAVE BEEN BUILT OR
FUNDED FROM OTHER SOURCES.
PASSING THIS UPDATED LIST THIS
YEAR, IT MEANS THAT THE CITY HA
TO GO BACK AGAIN NEXT YEAR, AND
PASS ANOTHER PLAN FROM THESE
PROJECTS. AGAIN, THIS SEEMS
RUSHED FOR NO OTHER REASON. THE
WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS DONE
BEFORE IT MEETS THE OFFICE. THE
WILL PLACE A NEW TRANSPORTATION
LEVEL FOR THESE VOTERS TO RENEW
THE 2015 LEVY THAT ALLOCATED
$930 MILLION OVER NINE YEARS. I
IS VERY LIKELY THAT THIS NEW
LEVY WOULD HAVE $1 BILLION IN
TAXPAYER FUNDS. WE HAVE
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS INTO THIS
NEW LEVY. WE ARE CREATING A NEW
TAX THAT IS ONLY GOING TO
CONTINUE TO IMPACT THE HOUSING
CRISIS, AND OTHER RECOVERIES.
THEY ARE HURTING SMALL
BUSINESSES. THEY ARE SENDING
SOME NEW INVESTMENTS TO THE
SIDE. IN CLOSING, WE ASK YOU NO
TO HAVE MOVING TRANSPORTATIONS.
WE HAVE THE INTRODUCTORY AND
REFERRAL COUNCILS. WE FEEL THIS
IS THE WRONG APPROACH AT THE
WRONG TIME. THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, MARTY
GOODMAN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS MART
GOODMAN. I'M ALSO HERE TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION TO THE ADVANCEMEN
OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEE. I WORK WITH A MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPER, AND I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF ADDING IMPACT
FEES TO PROJECTS DURING THE
CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE. IT IS
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FINANCE
NEW PROJECTS WITH ALL-TIME HIGH
COSTS, AND INTEREST RATES THAT
HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLED. THEY
HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FEES
THAT WE HAVE ALREADY LOOKED AT
FROM THE CITY. EACH OF OUR
PROJECTS, PAY MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING FOR MHA FEES. THEY
PROVIDE WORKFORCE HOUSINGS,
USING THE PROGRAM. MULTIFAMILY
PROJECTS, ARE CURRENTLY AT THE
TIPPING POINT. AN ADDITIONAL FE
WILL POSTPONE OR CANCEL MANY
MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING PROJECTS.
YOU DON'T GET THE TRANSPORTATIO
IMPACT FEES, AND YOU ALSO DON'T
GET THE WORKFORCE HOUSING FEES
EITHER. IT IS NOT A GOOD TIME T
BE RUSHING THIS THROUGH WITHOUT
UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE IMPACTS
OF IMPACT FEES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK.
>> HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, WE CAN.
>> WONDERFUL. MY NAME IS ABBY,
AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHAL
OF WASHINGTON STATE, THE
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
ASSOCIATION. THERE ADVANCING
THE COVER HAS A PLAN. THEY HAVE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO
THE FULL COUNCIL. WE ARE DEEPLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE RUSH FOR TH
UNUSUAL PROCESS AROUND THESE
IMPORTANT POLICIES. THE COVER
HAS A PLAN AND THE LIMITS ON
THIS ISSUE, HAVE BEEN LOOKING A
THESE THINGS ON TWO OCCASIONS.
THE PUBLIC IS EXPECTING A
TYPICAL ACTION FOR THE MOMENTS.
THIS IS THE ISSUE IN THE
REPORT. THEY ARE UNDERMINING TH
VALUES. THEY HAVE ANOTHER
PROCEDURAL STEP. THEY ARE
SETTING THE FRAMEWORK FOR CITY
POLICY, AND THE LAW DEMANDS
FUTURE CITY POLICIES THAT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. THEY
ARE LOOKING AT SUPPOSED
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS. THIS IS
ALL AT STAKE NOW. IT IS NOT AT
FUTURE POINT. THEY HAVE ANOTHER
PROJECT LIST. THEY HAVE SET THE
MAXIMUM FEE. THIS IS A
FOUNDATIONAL PART OF THE
FRAMEWORK. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE
TO USE A STALE LIFT, PROVIDED B
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN, WITHOUT
ANY ANALYSIS OUTREACH, OR
MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION. THE
PROCESS IS CONCERNED.
PRESENTATION IMPACT FEES ARE NO
THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR OUR CITY.
AMIDST A HOUSING CRISIS, NOW IS
NOT THE TIME TO PILE ON. NOTHIN
COMES RIGHT NOW. THE CITY SHOUL
NOT BE TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLE
BY MAKING IT WORSE. THEY ARE
FURTHER CONSTRAINING THE SUPPLY
OF HOUSING, AND ADDING THOUSAND
OF DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL FEES.
IT WILL ONLY RESULT IN LESS
AFFORDABILITY. IT IS A BAD IDEA
BEING FERMENTED ON A RUSHED
TIMEFRAME. WE EMPLOY YOU TO TAK
THE TIME OF POLICY CHOICE THAT
THIS MAGNITUDE DEMANDS. WE ARE
VOTING AGAINST ADVANCING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS T
THE FULL COUNCIL.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, TOSHA WISE
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AND THANK
YOU, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M CALLIN
REGARDING THE OPPOSITION OF
IMPACT FEES. MY NAME IS TOSHA,
AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS A
RESIDENT OF SEATTLE, AND IS THE
HOUSING POLICY SPECIALIST OF
MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF
KING COUNTY. THEY ARE DEEPLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSALS T
CONSIDER THE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF
THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THE
IMPORTANCE OF SPENDING CRITICAL
INFO STRUCTURE PROJECTS. WE
BELIEVE THIS IS A VITAL MOMENT,
WHERE WE SHOULD AVOID FURTHER
BURDENING THE CONSTRUCTION
AGENCIES. WE HAVE SOCIOECONOMIC
ROAST, AND WE HAVE HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS ACTIONS.
THEY HAVE SURPASSED THOSE RIGHT
HERE. WE ARE TRYING TO PURSUE
ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS, WHILE
SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, MATT
HUTCHINS. THE
RESOLUTION. 32.97. IT IS NOT
NECESSARY AT ALL. WE SPENT YEAR
WRITING THE MARITIME POLICIES.
WE ARE COMING TOGETHER TO THESE
BUSINESSES. WE HAVE EVERYONE
INCLUDED IN THIS COUNSEL. THIS
IS GOING TO REFLECT A CONSENSUS
POLICY THAT SUPPORTS IT. THE
BEDROCK OF THE POLICY PUTS THE
PROTECTION OF MIXED INTRUSIVE
UNITS, INTO PARAMOUNT ACCOUNTS,
WITH THE NEED FOR RESUMING THEI
BUSINESS RIGHT THERE. IT IS
MORE THAN JUST FISHERIES. NOW,
BREWERIES, LOGISTICS,
TECHNOLOGY, AND A LOT OF THINGS
IN THE FUTURE. IN THE FRESH
TRANSPORTATION PLAN, SOME OF
THESE CORES HAVE NOT CHANGED. W
HAVE ANOTHER STATUS OF
COMMITMENT TO RETAIN
MAINTAINABILITY. WE SHOW HOW WE
ARE CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WE ARE TRYING TO SUPERSEDE
MARITIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIES.
WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS. W
HAVE THESE CHANGES. THEY ARE
TRYING TO PROTECT TRUCK ROUTES.
WE ARE CALLING FOR ANNUAL
REPORTS. HOW MUCH ARE THEY GOIN
TO READ THESE FOR? WE HAVE
IMPACT ANALYSIS. WE HAVE
DIFFERENT MARITIME STRATEGIES.
THEY ARE NOW ALLOWED. THEY HAVE
LOOKED AT IT ANYWAYS. IN THE
END, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WERE
LOOKING FOR. WITH THIS
RESOLUTION, YOU WOULD BE LOOKIN
AT INTEREST PARAMOUNT. THEY HAV
DIFFERENT PEOPLE AS WELL.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, CHRIS
GOODRICH.
>> RESOLUTION 32097. THIS
RESOLUTION CONTINUES TO HARM TH
TRANSPORTATION. THEY'RE TRYING
TO RESTRICT OUR ABILITY TO
REDUCE LANES, AND LANE WITH ON
MAJOR TRUCK ROUTES. MORE THAN
50% OF ALL OF OUR PEDESTRIAN
TECHNOLOGIES HAVE OCCURRED ON
THOSE MAJOR TRUCK ROUTES.
THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE
SEPARATED AND PROTECTED
INDUSTRIAL STATEMENTS. IT IS TH
BEST TOOL THAT WE HAVE TO
IMPROVE THEIR SAFETY. THE
RESOLUTION GOAL IS TO PRESERVE
THE FOOTPRINT ON THESE ROUTES.
THEY HAVE ZERO GOALS, OR THE
ONES THAT ARE INCLUDED NOW AND
THE RESOLUTION IS IN THE MOTOR
BOARD. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FRO
NEW POWERS. THEY ARE REDUCING
THESE NUMBERS. IT ONLY FOCUSES
ON THOSE PROJECTS. THEY HAVE TH
ADVISORY BOARD. THEY DO NOT HAV
THE TIME TO DISCUSS THIS. THEY
HAVE REQUESTED THAT THIS IS
DELAYED UNTIL RESOLUTIONS HAVE
ANOTHER MEMBER OF THEIR STAFF.
THERE CONSTRUCTING THE FEEDBACK
THIS IS NOT BEEN DONE. THE
RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNCIL,
UNDERMINES OUR FACILITY TO KNOW
THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIL
IT. WE HAVE SOLUTIONS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS
DOES NOT LOOK AT THE PROJECT
PLANNING, AND DESIGN EFFORTS.
THIS IS MOVING FORWARD OF THE
COST OF PEDESTRIAN LINES.
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN RUSHED, IT
IS THE POTENTIAL HARM FROM THES
PEDESTRIANS. THEY ARE CREATING
BARRIERS TO SOLUTIONS. IT WOULD
BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR THE COUNCI
TO ENDORSE THIS. PLEASE VOTE NO
ON 32097.
>> THIS IS OUR NEXT MEET UP.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS DEBORAH
BARKER. I EMERGE MYSELF AND URG
THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE THESE
TIMELY PUBLIC HEARINGS. THEY
HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEES. THIS IS NOT IMPACT ANY
ONGOING OR UPCOMING PROCESSES.
SEATTLE HAS ALL OF THIS. INDEED
IT WAS A DIFFERENT CITY COUNCIL
THE PUBLIC CAN EVALUATE SEVERAL
DIFFERENT TOPICS AT ONE TIME.
WHAT IS ADVERSELY IMPACTED RIGH
NOW, IS THE ABILITY FOR THE CIT
OF SEATTLE TO HAVE
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. I AM NOT
PAID DEVELOPER, REPRESENT, AND
YOU CAN MAKE THESE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES GO
AWAY. I AM NOT BEFORE YOU,
WHINING THAT MY BOTTOM LINE IS
AWFULLY IMPACTED BY THESE FAILE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
COUNCIL NUMBERS, I'M A PRIVATE
CITIZEN. I SUPPORT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. SO
DOES EVERY OTHER MUNICIPALITY.
I'M SUGGESTING TO THE DEVELOPER
BUT IF YOUR BOTTOM-LINE CAN
HANDLE A TEST, THE NEED TO
ADJUST YOUR TAKE-HOME PAY.
PERSONALLY, I'M SICK AND TIRED
OF THE SEATTLE-BASED BASHING.
SEATTLE HAS A WAY TO FUND
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS. PLEASE
AMEND THE IRC. SET A PUBLIC
HEARING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER, IS JESSE
SIMPSON.
>> THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME TO
TESTIFY. COUNCILMEMBERS, I'M
JESSICA SIMPSON. AND FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT PORTION. HE
REPRESENT 200 MEMBERS, INCLUDIN
MAJOR NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE MAJO
HOUSING LENDERS. SERVICE
PROVIDERS AND EXACT CONTRACTORS
ATTORNEYS OR MORE, ARE WORKING
TO ENSURE THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE
CAN LIVE IN SAFE, HEALTHY, AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HE WANTED T
EXPRESS OUR CONCERN WITH
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPANY'S
PLAN TO POTENTIALLY INCORPORATE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. FRO
A POLICY STANDPOINT,
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
THREATENED TO WORSEN RISING
HOUSING COSTS. WE HAVE HIGH
INTEREST, AND INFLATED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THIS IS A
CHALLENGING CLIMATE. WE ARE
EXPECTING THIS TO CONTINUE FOR
SOME TIME. WE HAVE AN ADDITIONA
FEE. THIS CAN LIMIT NEW HOUSING
WE HAVE ANOTHER SHORTAGE. GIVEN
THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM,
ADDITIONAL SLOWDOWNS AND PRIVAT
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WILL
DIRECTLY REDUCE NEW, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. DISCOURAGING PRIVATE
PROJECTS, HAS REAL CONSEQUENCE,
EVEN IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS ARE STEMMED FROM THE
IMPACT FEE. A LOT OF WAYS, THEY
HAVE SPOKEN TO IT. FROM A
PROCESS STANDPOINT, THEY ARE
ACCELERATING THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE IMPACT FEE. IT HAS
BROUGHT FURTHER ATTENTION TO TH
COUNCIL CALENDAR. IT REALLY
THREATENS SOME INCLUSION, AND
OPEN ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES. WE
HAVE NOVEMBER 29 COMMITTEES. WE
ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO RUSSIA'S
MAJOR POLICY DECISIONS. THIS IS
WITHOUT CORPORATE ENGAGEMENT. W
ARE UNDERSTANDING THE TRADE-OFF
I URGE YOU TO NOT MOVE THAT
FORWARD. THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER.
>> HELLO?
>> HELLO.
>> YES. MY COMMENT IS ABOUT
RESOLUTION 32 097. I BELIEVE
SAFETY SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE TOP
PRIORITY ON ANY STREET. THIS I
PRIORITIZED ON THE MOST
DANGEROUS ROADS IN THE CITY. TH
TRUCK STREETS. FROM THE
RESOLUTION, IT IS USED BY
EVERYONE FOR ALL PURPOSES. THEY
ARE NOT JUST TRUCK STREETS. WE
HAVE THE DIFFERENT VEHICLES.
THIS RESOLUTION, WOULD ONLY MAK
THE MORE DANGEROUS. WE HAVE
OPPOSING SAFETY MEASURES. WE
HAVE CURB COSTS. WE HAVE THE
GREAT ADVISORY BOARD, AS WELL A
OTHER INDIVIDUALS, TO PREVENT
ANY REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS ON
THESE MAJOR STREETS. WE HAVE
IMPORTANT SAFETY PROJECTS. WE
ARE LOOKING AT THE MARGINAL WAY
OFFICE. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
BILLED THIS WAY. IT IS ONLY
GOING TO MAKE IT MORE OFTEN.
PLEASE KILL HIS RESOLUTION.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT SPEAKER, KATIE WILSON.
>> HELLO.
>> HELLO. GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY, SORRY. THIS IS KATIE
WILSON, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THE TRANSIT WRITERS UNION. WE
HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, AND
LOOKING AT IMPACT FEES FOR THE
FULL COUNSEL. WE UNDERSTAND
THIS WOULD NOT CREATE IMPACT FE
PROGRAMS. IT WOULD KEEP THE
POSSIBILITY OPEN TO CREATE SUCH
A PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE. FOR
EXAMPLE, NEXT YEAR'S
TRANSPORTATION LEVY. THIS WOULD
HAPPEN WITH 20 OF PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR,
WE CANNOT UNCONDITIONALLY
SUPPORT IMPACT PROGRAMS. WE
THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY
DESIGNED, SO AS TO NOT TO DETER
DEVELOPMENT HOUSINGS. WE
NORMALLY WOULD NOT SUPPORT A
PROGRAM THAT WOULD SET FEES TO
CONTRIBUTE TO A NEW HOUSING
SHORTAGE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE
THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO
ACQUIRE AND MITIGATE SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENT THE COST, IN THESE
ACTIVITIES. THEY IMPACT US, AND
THAT IS ONE WAY TO DO THAT. WE
URGE THE COUNCIL TO KEEP
IMPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION
FEES DOWN. THIS IS DURING THE
PROJECT THAT CENTER ON PEOPLE
WALKING AND RIDING WITHIN
TRANSIT. WE ARE LEAST WORRIED
ABOUT THEM REFERRING US TO
ANOTHER PROPER DISCUSSION. WE
SHARE THE CONCERNS OF OTHERS, O
THE RESOLUTION 30297.
>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, RILEY
ABRAM.
>> I'M QUITE DISAPPOINTED WITH
THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
THAT SHE SUPPORTS. WE ARE
LOOKING AT PROCESS CONCERNS. I
WILL BE BRIEF. IT WILL REMAIN A
BAD IDEA AFTER COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT. EACH OF YOU HAS
SURELY SAID MUCH ABOUT THE NEED
FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. WE
ARE FURTHER TAXING THE HOUSING.
IT WILL HAVE THAT RESPECT. WE
HAVE THE TAX PRODUCTION OF
THINGS FOR WHICH WE HAVE A
DESPERATE NEED. PLEASE REJECT
THESE OUTRIGHT. IF YOU WON'T DO
THAT, WE'LL DO THE SEO PROCESS
FOR GOOD JUST THIS ONCE. I ALSO
WANT TO SPEAK IN ALSO POSITION
RESOLUTION. I WANT TO LIVE ON A
TRUCK STREET IN REGION ONE. IT
IS AN UNSAFE BUDGET FEE. I DON'
WANT TO ADD ANOTHER POINT INTO
ANOTHER PAINFUL PROCESS IN WHIC
MAY BE, EVENTUALLY, THEY COULD
BE PART OF IT. PLEASE REJECT
THIS RESOLUTION. THANK YOU.
>> OUR LAST REMOTE SPEAKER, NIC
JEKYLL.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON,
COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M REPRESENTIN
THE DOWNTOWN SEATTLE CITY
ASSOCIATION. MY COMMENTS ARE
FROM THE REST TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES. LOOKING AT THE OPE
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, IT IS
CRUCIAL THAT WE ARE ESPECIALLY
REGARDING WHAT EXISTS. THEY ARE
TRYING TO TAKE ON THIS MATTER.
WE ARE PUSHING THIS FORWARD NOW
WITH THE POLICY DECISIONS,
WITHOUT ALLOWING PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDINGS O
THE POLICY TRADE-OFFS. THIS CAN
LEAD TO CONFUSION. AS YOU HEARD
FROM HIS ROOM ALREADY, I WILL
ALSO UNDERSCORE THESE
STAKEHOLDERS. THEY ARE PREPARIN
FOR THAT MEETING. IT WOULD LIMI
THEIR GOOD WORK, AND THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR MEDICAL AND
PUBLIC INPUT. WE URGE THE CITY
COUNCIL TO DeLAY THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES, AND
THE SYNCHRONIZED WORK ON A NEW,
MORE BROAD STRATEGY. AGAIN, THI
WORK SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED. WE
HAVE POSSIBLE ENGAGEMENTS WITH
BROAD GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS. W
HAVE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, TO
CONSIDER ALL OF THE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OPTIONS,
AND PROJECT PRIORITIES
ALONGSIDE, CLEARLY LOOKING AT
ANOTHER TRADE OPERATED FROM A
POLICY PERSPECTIVE, IMPACT FEES
HAVE BEEN A TOOL USED BY OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES, TO FUND
INITIATIVES, AND SMALLER,
YOUNGER, FAMILY ORIENTATIONS.
HOWEVER, IT SHOWS THAT THESE
FEES ALSO HAVE STUDENTS. THEY
ARE LOOKING AT THE COLLECTION O
URBAN DEVELOPMENTS. THEY HAVE
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. WE HAVE
THE CREATION OF AFFORDABLE AND
MARKETABLE HOUSING. NOW IS NOT
THE TIME TO CONSIDER ADDING NEW
FEES TO HOUSINGS IN SEATTLE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATIO
AND EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT
DOWNTOWN SEATTLE IS A
SUSTAINABLE ONE. THIS IS
SURROUNDED BY A SAFE, HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THAT
INCLUDES THE REMOTE AND PUBLIC
COMMENT SPEAKERS.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CLERK. THANK YOU FOR THOSE FOLK
THAT CALLED IN. THANK YOU FOR
THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT CAME INT
CHAMBERS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT. WITH THAT, PUBLIC
COMMENT IS NOW ENDING. IT IS NO
CLOSED. THAT IS THE CORRECT WOR
TO USE. I MOVE ON INTO OUR
AGENDA. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF
MATTERS COMING UP RIGHT HERE.
AND ON TO THE ADOPTION OF THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR. I MOVED TO ADOPT THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
TO ADOPT THE ACTIONS. ARE THERE
ANY COMMENTS? STARTING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO GO
FIRST?
>> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT. IT
WOULD MAKE SENSE.
>> THEY ARE GOING FIRST. HERE
YOU GO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THEY WILL TEAR US UP.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER DAN
STRAUSS. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A
WALK ON AS WELL.
>> IS IS AFTER YOURS.
>> I'M SORRY. I WAS FALLING BUT
I UNDERSTOOD YOUR PROMPTS TO BE
THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD PRIOR
TO THE MEETING OF THE ORDER.
>> WE HAVE TWO WALK-ON'S.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND WALK ON.
COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS,
LOOKING AT THE RAILROAD ISSUE.
WE ARE GOING TO START WITH THE
LAND-USE COUNSEL BILL. 120635.
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD BE
SPEAKING TO IT, AS WELL AS A FE
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.
>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE REFERRAL
CALENDAR . AT THIS POINT,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
COMMENTS .
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM
PRESIDENT. AS YOU SAID, THE
MOTION IS TO RE-REFER COUNSEL
BILL 120635 FROM THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE TO THE FULL COUNCIL
FOR PURPOSE OF CLARITY I FIRST
WANT TO ADDRESS MUCH OF THE
PUBLIC COMMENT WE HEARD. THIS
COUNSEL BILL DOES NOT ESTABLISH
A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM. WHAT IT WOULD DO IS
AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO ALLOW FOR IMPACT FEES
IN THE FUTURE IF THE COUNCIL
IN THE FUTURE CREATED SUCH A
PROGRAM BY SEPARATE
LEGISLATION. ANY PROPOSAL TO
CREATE AN IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
WOULD BE TO SET A SEPARATE
ACTION. MOST OF THE TESTIMONY
HER TODAY ABOUT AN IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM IS -- WOULD BE
WELL-PLACED TO HERE IN THE
DELIBERATION OF THE IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM, WHICH AGAIN, THIS IS
NOT. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC
IMPACT FEE PROPOSAL . THE
IMPACT FEE STUDY INCLUDED A
FIGURE FOR PURPOSES OF A STUDY.
IT IS NOT A PROPOSAL. IT IS
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT A FUTURE
IMPACT FEE COULD CHARGE. IF
SOMEBODY IS CONVEYING
INFORMATION AND THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO TESTIFY ABOUT THIS
PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT TO THE
INTRODUCTION REFERRAL CALENDAR,
THAT INFORMATION IS NOT
ACCURATE. AGAIN, WE ARE NOT
VOTING ON IMPACT FEE PROGRAM.
WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THE
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD MAKE IT
POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THE IMPACT
FEE IN THE FUTURE. WE ARE ONLY
VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT TO REBER
FOR A PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. THE
REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE,
LEGALLY, A PUBLIC HEARING MUST
TAKE PLACE IN ORDER FOR THE
COUNCIL TO VOTE ON THE BILL.
THAT IS ANOTHER THING I HEARD A
LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT,
WANTING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROCESS. AGAIN, THIS PUBLIC
HEARING THAT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED
IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
CONTOURS OF AN IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM, IT IS A PUBLIC
HEARING TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION
BY AMENDING THE COMP PLAN. THE
PROCEDURAL VOTE WOULD ALLOW FOR
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW
FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF THE
AMENDMENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THIS YEAR.
SUPPORT FOR THIS MOTION TODAY
DOES NOT NECESSARILY ASSUME
SUPPORT FOR THE COUNSEL BILL.
STATE LAW ALLOWS THE PLANT TO
BE AMENDED ONLY TWICE A YEAR.
ONCE IN THE ANNUAL PROCESS AND
SECONDLY, THE SECOND OPTION IS
DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.
THE ANNUAL COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
PROCESS HAS PASSED. FOLKS MAY
RECALL THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS,
DURING THAT ANNUAL PROCESS,
AGREED ON THE REQUEST BY THE
CHAIR TO NOT CONSIDER ANY COMP
PLAN AMENDMENTS, OTHER THAN
THOSE RELATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL
LANDS AMENDMENT. THERE WILL
SEVERAL POSSIBLE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DOCKETED
FOR THE ANNUAL PROCESS THIS
YEAR. WE ALL DEFERRED TO THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE PREFERENCE
AND DID NOT DISCUSS THOSE
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF THE
UNDERSTANDABLE, AND DESIRABLE,
NEED TO FOCUS ON THE INDUSTRIAL
LANDS AMENDMENTS. THAT CREATES
A SITUATION WHERE THE ONLY
OTHER TIME THAT STATE LAW
PERMITS US TO VOTE ON THE COMP
PLAN IS DURING THE BUDGET
PROCESS. THERE HAD BEEN A
COMMITTEE MEETING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING SCHEDULED BY THE LAND
USE CHAIR . THAT PUBLIC HEARING
WAS NOTICED IN THE DJ SEE, THE
PAPER OF RECORD, DAILY JOURNAL
OF COMMERCE. BUT IN AUGUST, THE
CHAIR CANCELED THAT PUBLIC
HEARING . THIS MEANS THAT
DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS,
CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, THAT
IS THE ONLY TIME WE CAN HEAR
THIS AMENDMENT. IN ORDER TO ACT
ON THE BILL THIS YEAR, THE
COUNCIL MUST VOTE BY NOVEMBER
21, ALONG WITH THE PASSAGE OF
THE BUDGET. THE PUBLIC HEARING
MUST TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE
COUNCIL CAN VOTE. COUNCIL
PRESIDENT JUAREZ HAS HELPFULLY
ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE TO THE
DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE FOR
THE 30 DAY NOTICE FOR THE FULL
COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7,
AS LEGALLY REQUIRED. I AM AWARE
THE CHAIR IS SEEKING TO
RESCHEDULE THAT HEARING FOR
NOVEMBER 29 . AGAIN, THAT DATE
WOULD BE TOO LATE FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE
LEGISLATION THIS YEAR DURING
THE BUDGET PROCESS. THAT IS
JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT HAS
BEEN GOING ON THIS YEAR IN THE
EFFORTS TO CONSIDER THIS COMP
PLAN AMENDMENT. I WANT TO GIVE
SOME OF THE HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND. IN LATE 2014, THE
CITY AUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT OF
A PROPOSAL FOR PARKS AND
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES WITH
AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT
CONDUCTED FOR EDUCATION IN
PARTNERSHIP RARE -- WITH THE
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. IN LATE
2014, THE COUNCIL ADOPTED A
BUDGET ACTION DEDICATING
$300,000 FOR EVALUATION OF
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
THAT BUDGET ACTION OF
$300,000 , RESOURCES SPENT ON
THIS EFFORT, WAS SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBERS . IN 2015, THE
EXECUTIVE RESPONSE RECOMMENDED
A WORK PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF AN IMPACT FEE FOR PARKS AND
TRANSPORTATION, AND ALSO
EXPLORATION WITH THE SEATTLE
SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH SEATTLE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THAT CONCLUDED
IN 2016, LEADING TO A FIRST
DRAFT AMENDMENT LATER THAT
YEAR. IN 2017, THE COUNCIL
DOCKETED CONSIDERATION OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
FOR IMPACT FEES. WHAT I SAY
DOCKETED, THAT MEANS WE VOTED.
WE VOTED TO SAY THAT WE WOULD
CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT TO THE
COMP PLAN. WE VOTED ON A
RESOLUTION THAT LISTED ALL THE
COMPANY HAS A PLAN AMENDMENTS
WE WERE PLANNING TO VOTE ON. IN
2017, THE COUNCIL MADE A
COMMITMENT THAT THE CITY WOULD
CONSIDER INCLUDING IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A LIST OF
PRIORITY TRANSIT PEDESTRIAN
AND BIKE SAFETY AND BRIDGE
PROJECTS WE COULD CONSIDER
FUNDING WITH A TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE IF LEGISLATION
IMPLEMENTING THAT PROGRAM WAS
ADOPTED LATER. IN 2018, A RATE
STUDY DETERMINATION WAS
ISSUED. THE SEP A
DETERMINATION WAS SENT TO THE
COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 19. THE
COUNCIL RESTATED THE COMMITMENT
TO THE PUBLIC BY PASSING
ADDITIONAL RESOLUTIONS IN EACH,
2020, 2021 AND 2022. WE HAVE
VOTED EVERY YEAR SINCE 2017 TO
SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO VOTE
ON THESE AMENDMENTS. IT IS AN
IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE OF MIND TO
VOTE AND KEEP OUR COMMITMENT
THAT WE MADE TO VOTE ON THESE
AMENDMENTS. FURTHER, THE WORK
TO DATE WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY A
VERY SUBSTANTIAL INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTMENT FROM THE CITY OF
SEATTLE. NOT ONLY THE FUNDING I
MENTIONED EARLIER FOR THE
EVALUATION, $300,000 FOR
EVALUATION OF IMPACT FEES, BUT
THERE WAS A SEPARATE
SUBSEQUENT CONSULTANT STUDY
THAT THE CITY FUNDED AND OUR
OWN COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF HAS
SPENT DOZENS OF HOURS
TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS
REPRESENTING THE CITY POSITION
OPPOSING TO SEPARATE APPEALS
NOW. FENCES TESTIFIED ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY ON TWO
SEPARATE APPEALS, AND THIS YEAR
THEY HAVE PARTICIPATED AS
CITY WITNESS IN SUPPORT OF THE
POSITION OF THE CITY TO HOLD
THE VOTE ON THE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE
FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD. I WAS PULLING UP THE
REST OF THE CALENDAR. THE FLOOR
IS OPEN NOW FOR OTHER FOLKS TO
SPEAK. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN WITH YOUR HAND UP.
>> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT JUAREZ.
AND THANKS COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD. I AM PROUD TO STAND
WITH YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
PROCEDURAL MOTION SO WE CAN
HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS A
MULTISTEP PROCESS. LIKE YOU
SAID, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE
MERITS OF A POLICY THAT CAN
HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT IS
JUST TO SET UP A PUBLIC HEARING
BECAUSE STATE LAW HAS CERTAIN
CONSTRAINTS ON HOW AND WHEN WE
CAN HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE
HEARD THIS AFTERNOON FROM
SEVERAL PAID LOBBYISTS WHO ARE
APPARENTLY WORRIED ABOUT PAYING
A FEE TO HELP THE CITY FUND
IMPORTANT TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
PROJECTS , EVEN THOUGH
NONPROFITS WOULD BE EXEMPTED BY
ANY SUCH FEE. WE WILL SEE HOW
MUCH INFLUENCE AND SWAY THOSE
LOBBYISTS HAVE WITH TODAY'S
PROCEDURAL VOTE. TODAY THE
LOBBYISTS HAVE SPOKEN. ALL THE
MORE REASON TO HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING ON NOVEMBER 7 TO HEAR
FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS
WELL. THIS VOTE WOULD SIMPLY
ENABLE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND
WHO HERE TODAY IS AFRAID OF A
PUBLIC HEARING? WE'RE NOT HERE
TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF THE TWO
PAGE BILL BECAUSE THE MOTION
BEFORE US IS SIMPLY PROCEDURAL.
I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN
PROCEED WITH THIS. WE THOUGHT
WE HAD SOMETHING SET UP EARLIER
THIS YEAR, BUT THAT FELL
THROUGH. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT
PROCEDURAL VOTE TO ENABLE A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE GENERAL
PUBLIC. THANK YOU.
>> WITH THAT, I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES. I
WILL JUST STATE THAT THE
COMMITTEE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER
IS COMMITTED TO A PUBLIC
HEARING AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE
OPPORTUNITY. SINCE THEN, I
PUBLICLY NOTICED A 30 DAY
NOTICE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING
AT THE NOVEMBER 29 LAND USE
COMMITTEE. THAT IS THE NEXT
OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE POLICY
COMMITTEE TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC
HEARING. I DO BELIEVE THE
IMPACT FEES NEED TO BE
CONSIDERED AS WE REVIEW THE
NEXT TRANSPORTATION B. HAVING A
PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 29
SETS US UP TO DO SO. IF WE
RE-REFER THE BILL TODAY IT WILL
TAKE A FULL POLICY MEETING TO
FULL COUNCILMEMBER DURING THE
SEPTEMBER LAND USE MEETING, WE
SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.
I DID CANCEL IT BECAUSE THE
HEARING EXAMINER HAD NOT
FINALIZED THEIR DECISION. IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION IN
PUBLIC VIEW WITH ENOUGH TIME TO
ANALYZE AND UNDERSTAND IT
BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF
RECORD IS HELD ON THIS ITEM. AT
THAT TIME WE DID HAVE PUBLIC
COMMENT, AND IT WAS SPLIT.
THERE WAS MORE THAN , AS ONE OF
MY COLLEAGUES MENTIONED, PAID
LOBBYISTS. THERE WERE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT VOICES THAT SPOKE TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING THE
FINAL DECISION BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER. THE HEARING EXAMINER
HAS HEARD FROM FOLKS ON
CENTRAL STAFF AND ALL THE
PARTIES . TO HAVE THE PUBLIC
HEARING OF RECORD BEFORE THAT
NOTICE IS MADE PUBLIC DOES A
DISSERVICE. SO AGAIN, THE
PUBLIC HEARING , THE OFFICIAL
PUBLIC HEARING ON
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES HAS
BEEN NOTICED , HAS BEEN
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 29. I AM
IN FAVOR OF HAVING THIS PUBLIC
HEARING, WHICH IS WHY I
SCHEDULED IT. AS CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE, I DO BELIEVE WE NEED
TIME TO REVIEW AND UNDERSTAND
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE AMENDING
THE COMP PLAN. SPEAKING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN , IT WAS
INDICATED THAT THE NOVEMBER 29
PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOT
ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE
DESIRE TO VOTE ON THE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT ON NOVEMBER 21, ONLY
SIX WEEKS FROM NOW. IF WE ARE,
IN FACT, JUST VOTING
PROCEDURALLY, THAN THE
PUBLICLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
ON NOVEMBER 29 SATISFIES OUR
NEEDS. THE BUDGET CHAIR HAS
INDICATED WE DON'T HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO BE BRIEFED AND
REVIEW THIS POLICY DURING THE
BUDGET SEASON, AND I AGREE WITH
THAT ASSESSMENT. WE NEED TO
HAVE A FORMAL BRIEFING ONCE THE
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION IS
FINAL. THIS IS A BIG PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. THERE ARE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, AS HE
HEARD IN PUBLIC COMMENT DURING
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE, WHICH
WAS MORE VARIED THAN WE HAD
TODAY. BUT JUST TO GIVE
REFERENCE. WE HAD REALLY TWO
BIG PIECES OF LEGISLATION AT
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE THIS
YEAR, TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
AND MARITIME INDUSTRIAL ZONING
CHANGES. JUST FOR HISTORY, THE
TREE ORDINANCE RECEIVED
QUARTERLY UPDATES IN THE LAND
USE COMMITTEE FOR THE PAST FOUR
YEARS AND RECEIVED SEVEN
COMMITTEE MEETINGS IN THE LAND
USE COMMITTEE ALONE. THIS
LEGISLATION STILL NEEDS WORK ,
DESPITE HAVING THE AMOUNT OF
TIME DEDICATED TO IT, AND AS
WELL, WE ALREADY STARTED THE
RESOLUTION WHICH IS LAND USE
COMMITTEE WILL PASS IN DECEMBER
THAT WILL OUTLINE THE NEXT
STEPS FOR UPDATING AND
IMPROVING THE TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE. THE MARITIME AND
INDUSTRIAL ZONING CHANGES
RECEIVED 4 PLUS YEARS TO
FACILITATE STAKEHOLDER
WORKSHOPS. ADDITIONAL
FACILITATION FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE AND FOUR MEETINGS IN THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE. ONE OF THE
HANGING ELEMENTS OF PASSING THE
ZONING CHANGES IN THE MARITIME
AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES IS THE
TRANSPORTATION, INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTION. YOU
HAVE HEARD TODAY IT NEEDS MORE
WORK. WE ARE TAKING ADDITIONAL
TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT
RESOLUTION ACHIEVES BOTH GOALS,
WHICH IS MOVING FREIGHT AND
KEEPING EVERYONE SAFE. SO I
SHARE THIS BACKGROUND BECAUSE
THESE TWO PIECES OF LEGISLATION
ARE, IN FACT, SMALLER THAN
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES AND
HAVE RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL MORE
TIME AND ARE STILL NOT PERFECT.
IN CONTRAST, THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES HAVE BEEN HEARD
TWICE, ONCE AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE AND ONCE IN LAND USE
. BOTH BRIEFINGS BEFORE THE
HEARING EXAMINER FINAL
DECISION. THE HEARING EXAMINER
HAS STILL NOT MADE A FINAL
DETERMINATION, AND WE EXPECT
THIS TO BE DONE BY THE END OF
THE MONTH. WE EXPECTED THE
DECISION TO BE DONE IN
SEPTEMBER, WHICH IS WHY I
SCHEDULED THE PUBLIC HEARING
THEN. WITH IT NOT BEING
COMPLETED, WE MOVED IT. IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE FULLY
UNDERSTAND THE POLICY BEFORE
VOTING ON IT. ANOTHER EXAMPLE,
JUST FROM THIS YEAR, A BILL
WAS SENT THAT SHOULD'VE GONE TO
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE AND WAS
SENT, INSTEAD, TO FOOLS --
FULL COUNSELOR. WE RECEIVED
INFORMATION THAT THE
LEGISLATION WAS CUT AND DRY AND
IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MOVE
FORWARD QUICKLY. WE PASSED THE
LEGISLATION ON AN EMERGENCY
BASIS WITHOUT HAVING A PUBLIC
HEARING FIRST. ONCE WE HELD THE
PUBLIC HEARING, WE RECEIVED
IMPORTANT INFORMATION. THIS LAW
LAST WEEK WAS STRUCK DOWN IN
THE COURT . THAT DEMONSTRATES
THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A
PUBLIC HEARING ONCE ALL THE
INFORMATION IS IN THE PUBLIC.
I SHARE THIS STORY BECAUSE IT
IS IMPORTANT THAT WE RECEIVE
THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
AND HAVE THE TIME NEEDED TO
UNDERSTAND THEIR DECISION,
THEIR DETERMINATION, BEFORE
RECEIVING THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC
HEARING THAT WILL BE HELD ON
THE RECORD FOR ALL FUTURE
ACTIONS . AGAIN, I DO BELIEVE
THAT IMPACT FEES NEED TO BE
CONSIDERED AS WE REVIEW THE
NEXT TRANSPORTATION B. AS THE
CHAIR OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE,
I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT WE
HAVE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE
POLICY. AS CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD
HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE
FIRST OPPORTUNITY IN COMMITTEE.
THAT IS WHY I PUBLICLY NOTICED
THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ONCE I
SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH
COLLEAGUES , ANOTHER PUBLIC
HEARING NOTICE WAS SCHEDULED
FOR FULL COUNCIL EVEN THOUGH
THE BILL WAS NOT REFERRED TO
FULL COUNCIL. AND SO,
COLLEAGUES, I UNDERSTAND THE
DESIRE TO MOVE QUICKLY. I
ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THE
DESIRE TO MOVE IMPACT FEES,
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IT
WITH THE NEXT TRANSPORTATION B.
AT THIS TIME, I REQUEST THE
DECISION TO LEAVE IT IN THE
LAND USE COMMITTEE FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC
HEARING ON NOVEMBER 29. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL, OF
COURSE, VOTE YES TO RE-REFER
THIS LEGISLATION, WHICH IS
LEGALLY REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE
POSSIBILITY OF A VOTE. AS I
SAID DURING THE SEPTEMBER 18
COUNCIL MET BRIEFING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
ANNOUNCED HE WAS UNILATERALLY
CANCELING THE PUBLIC MEETING
LEGALLY REQUIRED TO ALLOW
COUNCIL TO VOTE ON IMPACT
FEES, THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISH
MEANT HAS USED BACKROOM
MANEUVERS TO PREVENT IMPACT
FEES FOR GETTING FULL. FOR
YEARS THEY REFUSED TO CONDUCT
THE PRIORITY. LAST YEAR ,
COUNCILMEMBER UNILATERALLY
CANCELED THE LEGALLY REQUIRED
HEARING. IF COUNCIL MEMBERS
DON'T THINK PEOPLE DON'T HAVE
TO PAY FEES OR TAXES , THEY
SHOULD NOT MANEUVER TO PREVENT
A VOTE. IN SEPTEMBER, WE HEARD
THE EXCUSE THAT THE PUBLIC
HEARING WAS CANCELED BECAUSE
THE REVIEW WAS CURRENTLY
APPEALED TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER. WE HEARD THIS AGAIN
FROM COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS,
WHICH IS TRUE, BUT THERE'S
NOTHING ABOUT THAT THAT
REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
BE CANCELED. IN MY OFFICE, WE
PREPARED LIKE LEGISLATION FOR
MORE TINY HOUSES. WE COMPLETED
THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WOULD
NOT HAVE TO DELAY THE VOTE
AFTER THE HEARING EXAMINER
ISSUED THEIR RULING, WHICH IS
WHAT WE DO. IN THIS CASE, THE
PUBLIC HEARING MUST LEGALLY BE
GIVEN A MONTH PRIOR NOTICE AND
THE HEARING MUST BE COMPLETED
BEFORE THE COUNCIL CAN VOTE AND
COUNSEL CAN ONLY VOTE WHEN THE
BUDGET IS VOTED ON AT THE END
OF NOVEMBER. THERE IS ANY
FURTHER DELAY, IT WILL PREVENT
ANY VOTE ON THIS. TODAY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS OFFERS A
PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 29,
CONVENIENTLY ONE WEEK AFTER THE
BUDGET VOTE. HE KNOWS FULL WELL
TAKING ANY VOTE ON IMPACT FEES
THIS YEAR IS ILLEGAL AS IT IS
AFTER THE PUBLIC VOTE. MAKE NO
MISTAKE, ANY COUNCILMEMBER WHO
MANEUVERS LIKE THIS OR VOTES NO
ONE THIS PROCEDURE IS CLEARLY
USING WHAT WOULD SEEM TO
ORDINARY PEOPLE BUREAUCRATIC
MAMBO JUMBO -- IN ORDER TO
PREVENT IMPACT FEES FROM
GETTING A VOTE. THERE CAN BE
THAT
>> I ASKED THAT WE PLEASE NOT
PERSONALIZE COMMENTS AND THE
INTENTIONS AND INTEGRITY OF OUR
MEMBERS. YOU CAN FINISH YOUR
COMMENTS. I AM SORRY. I HEAR
COUNCIL MEMBERS LYING TO THE
PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES. I DON'T
HEAR ANY OBJECTION TO THAT.
INSTEAD OF OBJECTING TO IT, I
THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD
HAVE THE COURAGE TO FACE THE
MUSIC FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION ABOUT
THIS . IN PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY,
WE HEARD REPRESENTATIVES FOR
MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
COMPANIES SUCH AS DOWNTOWN
SEATTLE ASSOCIATION WAX
ELOQUENTLY ABOUT HOW DEVELOPER
IMPACT FEES WILL HARM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IS IS TRULY
-- THIS IS TRULY ORWELLIAN.
THESE WEALTHY ELITES ARE
PROFITING RIGHT NOW . THEY HAVE
THE BREATHTAKING AUDACITY TO
LIE BY SAYING THAT IF THEY
HAVE TO PAY A TINY IMPACT FEE
TO HELP BUILD CITY
INFRASTRUCTURE, IT WILL HURT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY CALL
ALLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING
RUSHING THIS BILL. THAT IS
HILARIOUS. IT HAS LITERALLY
BEEN DELAYED FOR A DECADE
ALREADY. I WILL VOTE YES FOR
THIS LEGISLATION SO THAT IT
HAS A CHANCE FOR A VOTE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT. COUNCILMEMBER MOSQEDA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I
THINK THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF
US IS NOT NECESSARILY IF WE
WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT IMPACT FEES. IT IS A
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
WE WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
IN THE MIDST OF THE BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS WE ARE EMBARKED ON.
WE ONLY HAVE A SERIES OF ABOUT
EIGHT WEEKS TO CONSIDER THE
LEGISLATION TO FINALIZE A 2024
BUDGET. I THINK IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT JUST TO CENTER THIS
DISCUSSION . WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR AMENDMENT TODAY AND
WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ADDING
SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA FOR
OUR DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION
OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS WHILE
WE ARE ALSO TRYING TO TAKE UP
THE BUDGET. I JUST WANTED TO
OFFER THAT AS A WAY TO REFRAME
THAT THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE MERITS, PROS OR CONS,
ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES
LEGISLATION, AND THE ONGOING
CONVERSATIONS THAT IT HAPPENED
WITH COMMUNITY THE PAST SEVERAL
YEARS. APPRECIATE THE HISTORY
ON THAT. I DO WANT TO ADD I
THINK THERE IS IMPORTANT
CONTEXT THAT NEEDS TO BE
DISCUSSED. I WOULD VERY MUCH
LIKE TO BE PART OF THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. I'M A MEMBER OF
THE LAND USE COMMITTEE AND
REALLY WANT TO DIVE INTO THE
QUESTIONS THAT WE STARTED TO
OUTLINE IN THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE A FEW WEEKS AGO. I
PUT FORWARD ABOUT 20 QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE ONLY RECEIVED MINIMAL
INFORMATION, NOT VERY
SUBSTANTIVE ANSWERS TO ALL THIS
QUESTION SO FAR. THERE ARE A
HANDFUL OF POLICY QUESTIONS
THAT ARE OUTSTANDING. I COULD
NOT UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE
OF GETTING TO THOSE POLICY
QUESTIONS THEN HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY . IT IS ONE OF THE
PEOPLE THAT CAME IN TESTIFIED
TODAY. I ASSUME THEY ARE PAID,
JUST LIKE I WAS A PAID LOBBYIST
FOR THE WASHINGTON STATE LABOR
COUNCIL MET, A PAID LOBBYIST
FOR THE CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE. IT
IS NOT NEFARIOUS TO BE A PAID
LOBBYIST ON ITEMS WHEN YOU ARE
REPRESENTING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
WORKING TWO OR THREE JOBS AND
DON'T HAVE THE TIME AND
CAPACITY TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK
TO THEIR LAWMAKERS, WHETHER
LOCAL, STATE, OR NATIONAL.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
REPRESENTS THE CONSTITUENTS
THEY WORK WITH, HOUSING
RESIDENTS THEY WANT TO HOUSE IN
NEW HOMES AND THE PROCESS FOR
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY RAISED A NUMBER OF POLICY
QUESTIONS. SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF.
AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO
ENGAGING IN THIS CONVERSATION,
AND I HOPE IT IS AS ROBUST AS
WE HAVE CONSIDERED MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. I CAME
IN AT THE TAIL END OF THOSE
DISCUSSIONS. THERE WERE AT
LEAST 20 COMMITTEE MEETINGS WE
WERE PART OF. I KNOW THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION THAT WE
MUST HAVE, BUT WE ALSO MUST GET
IT RIGHT. DEPRESSION IN FRONT
OF US IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS
GETS ADDED TO THE COMMITTEE
CALENDAR OVER THE NEXT SIX
WEEKS. COLLEAGUES, I WILL TEE
UP SOMETHING, AND I KNOW YOU
WILL ALL ENGAGE DEEPLY TOMORROW
AS WE HAVE OUR FIRST OF THREE
CENTRAL STAFF WALK-THROUGHS OF
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION FOR THE
PROPOSED BUDGET THAT THE MAYOR
TRANSMITTED FOR 2024. AS YOU
MAY HAVE HEARD FROM CENTRAL
STAFF, HE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
THE MEMO, THERE IS ABOUT $20
MILLION IN CHANGES TO THE
PROPOSAL THAT WE CODIFIED AND
ENDORSED FOR THE 2024 BUDGET
FOR NEXT YEAR. $20 MILLION IS A
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WILL
REQUIRE A LOT OF IS ENGAGING
CLOSELY AS WE TRY TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS A FINAL BUDGET THAT
BOTH REFLECTS THE EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AS THE
CENTER DISCUSSIONS ON
COMMUNITY. TO ME, IT IS REALLY
A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE
HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TAKE THIS
ON AND GET INTO THE QUESTIONS
THAT WERE RAISED BY THE
COMMUNITY, INCLUDING FROM FOLKS
WHO ARE WORKING ON HOUSING,
THAT WERE ILLUSTRATED BY
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND MANY
OTHERS TODAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO
HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. I HOPE
WE CAN HAVE DELIBERATIVE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT THAT WILL
TEE US UP FOR THE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE COMING
NEXT YEAR. THIS IS NOT THE LAST
TIME TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS.
I APPRECIATE THAT THERE HAS
ALREADY BEEN A PUBLIC NOTICE
ISSUED FOR THE LAST WEEK OF
NOVEMBER. AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD
TO BEING PART OF THOSE
DISCUSSIONS . HOPEFULLY, THAT
CAN HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER WE
CONCLUDE THE BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS, WHICH WE ARE
FOCUSED ON THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE
CONCLUDE, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD
LIKE TO DO. COUNCILMEMBER,
HERBOLD , WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSES OUT OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO
HAVE ME SPEAK? I AM OFFERING
YOU THE FLOOR TO RESPOND TO,
NOT ONLY WHAT WE HEARD WITH
PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT SOME OF THE
COMMENTS MADE FROM OUR
COLLEAGUES OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WANT TO ADD.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AGAIN, TO THE FACT THAT
THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING
SCHEDULED AT THE END OF
NOVEMBER , THAT DOES NOT ALLOW
FOR THIS COUNCIL TO HAVE ANY
DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF
THE AMENDMENT. TO THOSE OF MY
COLLEAGUES WHO ARE SAYING THEY
LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING THE
CONTENT OF THE COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT, THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT THE END OF NOVEMBER WILL NOT
ALLOW THAT. THERE IS A PUBLIC
HEARING THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED. A
NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE
DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE PAPER
OF RECORD BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JUAREZ FOR NOVEMBER 7. TO THE
CONCERNS ABOUT BUDGET, COUNSEL
CENTRAL STAFF DIRECTOR HAS
SAID, AND I'M QUOTING FROM HER
DIRECTION, I HAVE LET BOTH THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND CHAIR
MOSQEDA KNOW THAT CENTRAL STAFF
IS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT A
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES COMP
PLAN AMENDMENT DURING BUDGET.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT DOING
ANYTHING OTHER THAN BUDGET
DURING BUDGET, WE CONSIDER BOTH
STAFF CAPACITY AND ANY NEXUS TO
BUDGET. IN THIS CASE, LIMITED
CENTRAL STAFF CAPACITY WOULD BE
REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND THE LEGISLATION AS WE HAVE
DONE THAT WORK IN ADVANCE AND
THERE IS A NEXUS TO BUDGET IN
THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS CAN
ONLY BE ADOPTED WITH THE BUDGET
AT THIS POINT IN THE YEAR. THE
POSITION FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO
ANALYSIS NECESSARY FOR PASSAGE
OF THIS AMENDMENT. THE
QUESTIONS THAT MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE REFERRED TO THAT HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED IN THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE ARE NOT QUESTIONS
WHOSE ANSWER WILL INFORM THE
COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. THE ANSWER
TO THOSE QUESTIONS WILL INFORM
THE COUNCIL NEXT YEAR IF THE
COUNCIL NEXT YEAR DECIDES TO
TAKE UP THE ISSUE. THE
LEGISLATION WE ARE SEEKING TO
RE-REFER TODAY IS NOTHING MORE
THAN A COUPLE OF ATTACHMENTS,
ONE WITH A LIST OF PROJECTS IN
THE OTHER TO THE STUDY. HERE'S
THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT THE BILL
SAYS. SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAST AMENDED BY ORDINANCE
12 6730 IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS.
ATTACHMENT A TO THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AS SHOWN
IN ATTACHMENT ONE TO THIS
ORDINANCE AND B, AMENDMENTS TO
THE TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX AS
SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT TWO. THAT
IS IT. THAT IS ALL THE SAYS.
THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS TO BE
MADE. THE ATTACHMENTS THAT
ARE OF DISCUSSION ARE PART OF
THE LEGISLATION AND WHAT IS
GOING THROUGH THE HEARING
EXAMINER APPEAL PROCESS. THERE
IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE
LIST OF PROJECTS. THERE IS NO
OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE
CONSULTANT RATE STUDY. THERE IS
NO ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS PARTICULAR BILL. THE
ANALYSIS IN THE DISCUSSION IS
ALL RELATED TO A FUTURE -- THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A FUTURE COMP
PLAN. UNDER A FUTURE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. AGAIN, WE CAN'T
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT UNTIL THE
COMPLETION OF THE APPEAL. THAT
IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. WE CANNOT
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT UNTIL THE
COMPLETION OF THE APPEAL, BUT
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO
WAIT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE
APPEAL TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC
IN A PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL
ACTION CAN CLEAR THE WAY FOR
FUTURE COUNSEL MAC TO DECIDE ,
AS MANY PEOPLE WE'VE HEARD FROM
TODAY ARE ADVOCATING FOR. I'VE
HEARD PEOPLE SAY THIS IS A
TOPIC THE NEXT COUNSEL MAC
SHOULD TAKE UP. I AM NOT
OBJECTING TO THAT. I AM SIMPLY
ADVOCATING FOR A COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT THAT WILL CLEAR THE
WAY AND MAKE THAT POSSIBLE FOR
THE FUTURE COUNSEL MAC. A
LETTER FOR -- FROM SEATTLE FOR
EVERY ONE SUGGESTED APPROACH TO
CONSIDER TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
FEES TO SYNCHRONIZE WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION REVENUE STRATEGY
TIED WITH THE SEATTLE LEVY. A
VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW FOR
CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES IN LINE WITH THE
MOVE SEATTLE LEVY. I AGREE COST
TO DEVELOP HOUSING SHOULD BE
PART OF ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT
ANY FUTURE FEE PROPOSAL.
CENTRAL STAFF HAS DEVELOPED A
CHART INCLUDING TOTAL COST OF
HOUSING PRODUCTIONS TO
ILLUSTRATE THAT. I HAVE SHARED
THAT INFORMATION WITH MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC IN MY NEWSLETTER.
COUNSEL MAC CENTRAL STAFF USED
IT AS AN EXAMPLE FOR
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES BASED ON
THE AVERAGE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE FOR WESTERN
WASHINGTON. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS
ALL DISCUSSION THAT WILL HAPPEN
LATER LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF
THE FEE, EXEMPTIONS TO THE FEE,
BUT IT IS NOT A CONVERSATION
THAT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE UNTIL
WE HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO SAY
A COUPLE YEARS AGO, I THINK IT
WAS IN 2021 THE COUNCIL HAD A
RULES UPDATE PROCESS WHERE I
SPONSORED AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COUNSEL MAC RULES THAT REQUIRES
WHEN A BILL SPONSOR WANTS TO
PROPOSE A PIECE OF LEGISLATION
TO GO DIRECTLY TO FULL COUNSEL
MAC AND SKIP THE COMMITTEE
THAT LEGISLATION SHOULD BE
HEARD IN, THAT THAT HAS TO BE
DONE WITH , NOT JUST BETWEEN
THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THE
COUNSEL MAC PRESIDENT, BUT THAT
HAS TO BE DONE IN CONSULTATION
AND COLLABORATION WITH THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR. WE DID THAT, I
PROPOSE THAT BECAUSE I FELT
THERE HAVE BEEN A TREND OF
BILL SPONSORS WHO WERE
REFERRING BILLS DIRECTLY TO
FULL COUNSEL MAC. I FELT THAT
AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS WOULD
HONOR THE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE
CHAIR IN A WAY THAT MADE FOR
SMOOTHER COUNSEL MAC
OPERATIONS. I AM DISAPPOINTED
THAT , DESPITE THE INTENT OF
THE COUNSEL MAC RULES, THAT IT
SEEMS TO BE BEING USED TO MAKE
IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE TWO
SPONSORS OF THIS LEGISLATION TO
HAVE THEIR LEGISLATION HEARD
THIS YEAR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS,
YOU CAN RESPOND , AND THEN WE
GO TO A VOTE.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL MAC
PRESIDENT. AND THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD FOR
SHARING THAT INFORMATION. ON
THE RECORD, I WANT TO STATE
THAT EVERYTHING I SAID DURING
OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS I HAVE
FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH. THE
MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER, I STATED
WE WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING
ABOUT THIS. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT
AGO THAT THIS CREATES A CLEAR
PATHWAY FOR THE FUTURE COUNSEL
MAC TO DECIDE. I AGREE WITH
YOU. ALSO HAVING A PUBLIC
HEARING ON NOVEMBER 29 SETS US
UP IN THE SAME WAY. THE REASON
IT SETS US UP IN THAT SAME WAY
IS BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT TO THE
COMP PLAN AND THE RATE
ORDINANCE NEED TO BE PASSED AS
A PACKAGE. WE HAVE THAT ABILITY
TO DO THAT NEXT YEAR AHEAD OF
THE NEXT MOVE SEATTLE LEVY
BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO
BE THINKING ABOUT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES AND
HOW WE OFFSET PROPERTY TAXES
WITH THAT NEXT LEVY. YOU DID
MENTION IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO
HAVE THE HEARING EXAMINER FINAL
DECISION MADE BEFORE HAVING A
PUBLIC HEARING. MY IN MY
COMMENTS EARLIER, I SHARED WHY
IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME AS A
POLICY CHAIR TO HAVE THAT
DECISION, NOT ONLY BE
FINALIZED, BUT ENOUGH TIME FOR
ME AS A POLICY CHAIR TO BE ABLE
TO READ IT AND FULLY
UNDERSTANDING. I KNOW WE HAVE A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT
WHAT PROCEDURAL VOTE MEANS
TODAY, BUT I DO ALSO WANT TO
RECOGNIZE ALL THE REALLY HARD
WORK YOU PUT INTO THIS . IT IS
FOR THE NEXT COUNSEL MAC TO
DECIDE. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
THAT CONVERSATION.
>> ARE YOU DONE?
>> YES. SORRY.
>> BEFORE I GET INTO MY
STATEMENT HERE, TWO THINGS,
THIS IS WHY WE DON'T LIKE
THINGS LIKE THIS TO COME TO
FULL COUNSEL MAC, BECAUSE IT
TURNS INTO A COMMITTEE HEARING.
I WILL PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
THERE'S AN OLD SAYING THAT A
PROBLEM WILL STATED IS A
PROBLEM SOLVED. I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQEDA AND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD TEED THAT
UP FOR US AND EXACTLY WHAT WE
ARE VOTING ON TODAY. WE'RE NOT
ESTABLISHING TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES. I APOLOGIZE TO THE
PUBLIC IF THAT IS WHAT HAS
GOTTEN OUT THERE. AS YOU HEARD,
WE DID SET A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR NOVEMBER 7 . AND ALSO, THE
AMENDMENT IS ASKING THAT THE
FULL COUNSEL MAC VOTE ALONG
WITH THE BUDGET ABOUT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ON
NOVEMBER 21. BETWEEN NOVEMBER
7 AND NOVEMBER 21 , THAT IS
SIX WEEKS. TODAY IS OCTOBER 10.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WEEKS
THAT COMPLETELY ADDS UP TO. IS
THAT EIGHT WEEKS? AS A RULE,
MY RESPONSIBILITY AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED WITH
MINIMAL EXCEPTIONS , THAT WE
DON'T TURN FULL COUNSEL
MEETINGS INTO COMMITTEE
MEETINGS, THAT COMMITTEES ARE
CREATED FOR A REASON . WE HAVE
NINE STANDING COMMITTEES. THOSE
COMMITTEES HAVE SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTISE . WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION AND
DEBATE. WE CAN OPENLY WORK FOR
CONSENSUS AND MAKE CHANGES,
MAKE BETTER LAWS , INFORM THE
PUBLIC OF HOW WE'RE GETTING
WHERE WE ARE GETTING.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HIT ON AN
IMPORTANT POINT. I'M NOT A FAN
OF BYPASSING A COMMITTEE, BUT I
ALSO KNOW THAT IF PEOPLE WORK
HARD TO GET A COMMITTEE CHAIR
TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE
ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT NEED
TO BE RAISED AND CAN'T GET
BEYOND THE COMMITTEE CHAIR,
THAT IS A PROBLEM. IT DOESN'T
HAPPEN A LOT, BUT IT CAN BE A
PROBLEM. WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF
US TODAY IS THAT, ON NOVEMBER
21, THAT ALL MY COLLEAGUES WILL
HAVE TO VOTE ON, AND BETWEEN
NOW AND THEN , TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES WITH THE WORK THE
CENTRAL STAFF IS ALREADY DONE,
WHICH PUTS EXTRA
RESPONSIBILITIES ON MY
COLLEAGUES DURING BUDGET .
CENTRAL STAFF HAS ALREADY DONE
A LOT IN THE CLERKS DURING THE
BUDGET CYCLE. WE DO HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES HERE. WE HAVE THE
NOVEMBER 7 PUBLIC HEARING TO
HEAR MORE ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD
TODAY . PEOPLE WILL HAVE MORE
INFORMATION. THERE WILL BE MORE
INFORMATION ON THE AGENDA. I
CAN'T IMAGINE OUR FRIENDS IN
CENTRAL STAFF DOING MORE WORK
THAN THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE.
THEY HAVE DONE A LOT. BY
NOVEMBER 21, COLLEAGUES CAN
VOTE YES OR NO BASED ON ALL THE
INFORMATION THEY HAVE, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH WORKING ON THE
BUDGET MATTERS. I DO VIEW THIS
AS A PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT .
BECAUSE WE ARE UNDER THE
CONSTRAINTS, LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
OF STATE LAW. THAT IS WHY I
SAID, YES, LET'S SET UP A
PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON NOVEMBER
7. WHERE NOT VOTING A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. I
DON'T KNOW HOW THAT RUMOR GOT
OUT THERE. AS USUAL, SOMETIMES
THINGS GET OUT THERE, AND THEY
ARE JUST NOT TRUE. I UNDERSTAND
THE CONCERNS OF BYPASSING THE
COMMITTEE, PARTICULARLY LAND
USE, AND BRINGING THIS TO FULL
COUNSEL MAC -- COUNCIL. I DO
NOT SIT ON THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE. I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD . I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE
CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY OF
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES AND
THE RESOURCES THAT THE CITY HAS
CONTRIBUTED FOR THE LAST SIX
YEARS TO UNDERSTANDING THIS
ISSUE. THE $300,000 COSTS WE
HAVE PUT IN , THE CONSTITUENT,
I'M SORRY, THE CONSULTANT
STUDY, THE EVALUATION, ALL THE
TIME THAT STAFF IS PUT IN ON
THIS MATTER . WE BRIEFED IT. WE
GET IT . IT IS BEEN AROUND. IT
JUST WAS NOT TEED UP BEFORE
BUDGET . AS YOU ALL KNOW, I AM
A MORE STORE AND -- STERN, I
LIKE TO START WITH FACTS WE ALL
AGREE ON AND SOME CLARITY AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BEFORE
MAKING DECISIONS, PARTICULARLY
MAKING EXCEPTIONS TO RULES. MY
UNDERSTANDING , AND I
UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND ALSO
UNDERSTAND THE POSITION FROM
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD. THIS IS
NOT DISPOSITIVE OF WHETHER WE
HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OR A VOTE
ON NOVEMBER 21. WE CAN DO THAT
WITHOUT -- WOULD'VE BEEN NICE
IF WE HAD AHEAD OF TIME TO HEAD
OFF AN APPEAL ? ABSOLUTELY. BUT
WE DON'T HAVE THAT. I
UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS BEING
BROUGHT TO US TODAY. BUT I WANT
TO STATE AGAIN THAT I WANTED TO
WORK WITH THE LAND USE CHAIR
AND COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN TO GO
AHEAD AND SET UP A PUBLIC
HEARING AND ALLOW THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WALK ON AN
AMENDMENT TO THE IRC THAT THIS
GETS REFERRED TO FULL COUNCIL.
BETWEEN TODAY AND NOVEMBER 21
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY WITH FULL
VETTING AND DISCUSSION AND
DEBATE ABOUT TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES. I ALSO HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY, AND I WANT TO
THANK CENTRAL STAFF FOR THIS
FOR THE -- PROVIDING THE LIST
OF PROPOSED, IF INDEED, THERE
WAS EVER A CHANGE OF WHAT TYPE
OF PROJECTS WILL BE AVAILABLE.
THEY ARE NOT PROJECT SET IN
STONE. THESE WERE LISTED
PROJECTS THAT SPAN ACROSS THE
CITY. I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO
THE INTEGRITY OF MY COLLEAGUES
ABOUT NOT BEING TRUTHFUL,
BECAUSE I KNOW ALL OF YOU TRULY
BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE DOING THE
BEST YOU CAN DO, NOT ONLY FOR
YOUR DISTRICT, BUT FOR THE CITY
OF SEATTLE. I KNOW THE
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS A PROCESS
THIS AMENDMENT. I UNDERSTAND
WHY. THIS IS IN HIS COMMITTEE.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT HAVING A
PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 29
IS TOO LATE. FOR THAT REASON,
I WILL BE VOTING YES. WITH
THAT, MADAM CLERK, CALL THE
ROLL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, FOUR
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES . COUNCIL
BILL 120635 IS REFERRED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S
MOVE ON REGARDING THE
INTRODUCTION REFERRAL CALENDAR.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN IS
THIS PUBLIC HEARING SUPPOSEDLY
GOING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7,
GIVEN THAT WE HAVE ONGOING
BUDGET DELIBERATIONS THAT DAY?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WILL
BE HELD DURING FULL COUNCIL,
WHICH IS ON A TUESDAY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> LET ME DOUBLE CHECK. YES.
CAN I JUST SAY ONE MORE THING?
WE HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK ON
THIS. THIS IS NOT THE END OF
IT. ALWAYS GET CONCERNED WHEN
PEOPLE HEAR SOMETHING, AND
SOMETIMES MISREPRESENTATION
GOES AROUND THE WORLD TWICE
BEFORE THE TRUTH ACTUALLY GETS
OUT THERE. WE'RE NOT VOTING ON
THAT TODAY. WE VOTED ON THE
AMENDMENT, IT PASSED, WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD BETWEEN
NOW, OCTOBER 10, AND NOVEMBER
21 . WE HAVE A LOT OF TIME. WE
ARE DONE WITH THAT. NOW WE'RE
MOVING ON TO THE SECOND WALK ON
ITEM ON THE INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR.
>> ONE QUESTION.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I AM CONFUSED. YOU SAID IT
WAS GOING TO BE REFERRED TO THE
FULL COUNCIL, WHICH IS WHAT I
THOUGHT GOING INTO THIS
MEETING. THEN IT WAS MENTIONED
IT WILL BE GOING TO THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
>> IT IS GOING TO THE FULL
COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
-- I HAVE TO STOP YOUR.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. MOVING ONTO ANOTHER
WALK ON LIMIT TO THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR. I MOVED TO AMEND THE
CALENDAR TO INTRODUCE TMP 100
22, ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE
OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIRECTOR TO APPROVE THE
TRANSFER OF THE RAILWAY
FRANCHISE FROM THE REAL WILL
COMPANY.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHT. IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED. WITH THAT, THIS
IS THE BALLARD TERMINAL REAL.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, THIS IS
IN YOUR COMMITTEE AND YOUR
DISTRICT. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> IT IS NOT IN MY COMMITTEE,
BUT I DID CONFER WITH THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR . THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN FOR
GIVING ME YOUR GRACES ON THIS.
THIS SETS US UP TO BE ABLE TO
PAY -- PAVE OVER ONE OF THE
MOST DANGEROUS RAIL TRACKS IN
OUR CITY. I HOPE WE CAN PASS
THIS BILL AT THE MEETING ON
OCTOBER 24. TO DO SO, I HAVE
MADE SEVERAL COMMITMENTS THAT
I WILL BE VERY FRANK ABOUT. I
HAVE COMMITTED TO COUNCIL
PRESIDENT THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS
ARE BRIEFED AND COMFORTABLE
TAKING A VOTE. I HAVE
COMMITTED TO NOT REQUESTING
CENTRAL STAFF TIME ON THIS,
WHICH IS WHY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
AND S D.O.T. WILL PROVIDE
THESE BRIEFINGS SO CENTRAL
STAFF CAN FOCUS ON THE BUDGET.
AND THIS IS A COMING TOGETHER
MOMENT . PARTIES THAT TYPICALLY
DISAGREE, WE HAVE FOUND
AGREEMENT HERE. WE DO NEED TO
PASS THIS LEGISLATION AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I'M TOLD
WE NEED TO POUR THE ASPHALT
BEFORE THE WEATHER CHANGES ANY
FURTHER. ADDING THIS
LEGISLATION TODAY WILL ALLOW US
TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION IN
TWO WEEKS SHOULD ALL COLLEAGUES
RECEIVE THE BRIEFING ON THIS
LEGISLATION FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE AND SDOT. IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE PASS THIS AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE
BIKING IN OUR CITY SAFER.
THANK YOU.
>> AFTER THAT, LET'S OPEN THE
FLOOR. ANY COMMENTS ON THE
AMENDMENT THE COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS JUST INTRODUCED IT TO
US FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR? ALL RIGHT.
I DO NOT SEE ANY. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
THE ADOPTION OF THE MEMO TO THE
INTRODUCTION REFERRAL CALENDAR.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
NINE IN FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. THE
COUNCIL BILL IS ADDED TO THE
INTRODUCTION REFERRAL CALENDAR,
REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL. I
THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION , THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR WILL BE ADOPTED AS
AMENDED. I AM NOT HEARING OR
SEEING OBJECTION. THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO THE
AGENDA. A COUPLE OF MATTERS
HERE AS WELL. I MOVED TO ADOPT
THE PROPOSED AGENDA. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT
THE PROPOSED AGENDA. ANY
COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> YES, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I
WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
THE AGENDA TO REMOVE ITEM 2,
RESOLUTION 32097. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED TO AMEND THE AGENDA BY
REMOVING ITEM NUMBER TWO,
RESOLUTION 32097 .
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, AND
SPONSOR, YOUR RECOGNIZED TO
ADDRESS THIS AMENDMENT IF
THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT
TO ADD.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. EVERY HEARD IN
PUBLIC COMMENT, I WILL BE
HONEST, I MADE A MISTAKE AND
DID NOT UPLOAD THE MOST CURRENT
DRAFT OF THIS RESOLUTION TO
THE AGENDA LAST WEEK. THIS
RESOLUTION HAS BEEN WORKED ON
IN PUBLIC SINCE JULY . IT IS
ABOUT THE AREAS CHANGING IN OUR
CITY. I AGREE WITH THE PUBLIC
COMMENT THAT THROUGHPUT IS NOT
THE GOAL. THE GOAL IS TO KEEP
FREIGHT MOVING THROUGH CHANGING
ZONING . MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT
IS DONE WITH VISION ZERO
IMPLEMENTED. I ALSO AGREE WITH
TRAVIS, WE CAN BOTH HAVE
FREIGHT MOVING AND KEEP PEOPLE
SAFE. IN THE SUBSTITUTE BILL
THAT WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA FOR EVERYONE TO SEE,
THROUGHPUT HAS BEEN REMOVED,
BIKE PEDESTRIAN BOARDS ARE
INCLUDED EVERY TIME FREIGHT IS
REFERENCED, AND WE ALSO WAKE --
WANT THAT TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING TO
DELAY THIS RESOLUTION UNTIL WE
CAN RECEIVE THE FEEDBACK AND
HAVE CONSENSUS ABOUT THIS
RESOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ITEM
NUMBER TWO FROM TODAY'S AGENDA?
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> I DEADLY SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WITH THE
MOTION TO DELAY. COLLEAGUES
WILL PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THAT
THIS AFTERNOON MY OFFICE
SUBMITTED AN AMENDMENT WORKED
ON WITH C STREET ADVOCATES TO
MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE
RESOLUTION TO REFLECT THE
VISION OF PUTTING SAFETY FIRST.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING
TO COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS IS THE
STAKEHOLDER WORK WITH THE
VARIOUS COMMISSIONS AND THE
COMMUNITY WILL ADOPT SIMILAR
CHANGES. APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS TAKING
MORE TIME WITH US AND
INCORPORATING THAT FEEDBACK AND
LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING A
FINAL RESOLUTION THAT REFLECTS
THOSE CORE VALUES OF SAFETY.
>> THANK YOU . THAT IS WHAT WE
CALL TEAMWORK, FOLKS. ANYWAY,
WITH THAT, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, IS OR ANYTHING YOU
WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE MOVED TO
THE VOTE?
>> NO.
>> ALL RIGHT. CLERK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION
CARRIES AND THE AGENDA IS
AMENDED. IF THERE IS NO
FURTHER OBJECTION, THE AGENDA
WILL BE ADOPTED. THE AGENDA AS
AMENDED WILL BE ADOPTED. NOT
SEEING OBJECTION. THE AGENDA,
AS AMENDED, IS ADOPTED. LET'S
MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE
CALENDAR GOING ON TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. WILL NOW CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR.
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
INCLUDE THE MINUTES FROM
SEPTEMBER 26, COUNCIL BILL
120672 AND BILL 120673 . WE
ALSO HAVE AN APPOINTMENT FROM
THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE , ONE
APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY
POLICE COMMISSION. ARE THERE
ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REMOVE ANY OF THESE
ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR? ALL RIGHT. HEARING
NONE. I MOVED TO ADOPT THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL .
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
SEVEN IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS ADOPTED. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE FIX MY SIGNATURE
TO THE MINUTES AND LEGISLATION
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ON MY
BEHALF. MOVING ONTO COMMITTEE
REPORTS. WE HAD SIX AND
REMOVED ONE. WE HAVE ONE FROM
THE PUBLIC ASSETS AND HOMELESS
COMMITTEE. CAN YOU PLEASE READ
ITEM 1 INTO THE RECORD.
>> [ ORDINANCE READ ]
>>
THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. AS COUNCIL MEMBERS
WILL RECALL, AT THE REQUEST OF
COLLEAGUES, THIS LEGISLATION
WAS HELD FROM OUR MEETING TWO
WEEKS AGO TO MAKE SOME
ADDITIONAL INQUIRIES INTO THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE
LEGISLATION. THIS LEGISLATION
ENTERS INTO AN AGREEMENT , A
CONSENT DECREE, WITH THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY FOR WORK AT THE
DUWAMISH WATERWAY PARK SITE
DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF SOIL
CONTAMINATIONS AT THIS LOCATION
. IT IS GOOD LEGISLATION FOR
US TO BE PASSING GIVEN THAT WE
COULD BE AT RISK OF FACING
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FROM THE
RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IF WE
DON'T ENTER INTO SUCH A CONSENT
DECREE IN THE CITY COULD
POTENTIALLY BE OPEN TO DAMAGES
TO PAY FOR THE COST OF
REMEDIATING THE SITE . I DO
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AT THE
FRONT, AND I IMAGINE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WILL
SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL, THAT
FROM LOOKING INTO THIS POST,
THE COMMITTEE HEARING , WE DID
DETERMINE, MOSTLY THROUGH THE
DILIGENCE OF THE HERBOLD
OFFICE, THAT THERE ARE
IMPLICATIONS TO AN EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE SITE
THAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
BEEN WORKING TO SECURE , AND
THAT THIS CONSENT DECREE WOULD
LIKELY MAKE THAT SITE
UNAVAILABLE FOR THOSE PURPOSES.
I DO WANT TO STATE ON THE
RECORD THAT I AM DISAPPOINTED
THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT
MADE READILY AND APPARENTLY
AVAILABLE BY THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT THROUGH OUR PROCESS
OF WORKING THIS THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE. THAT INQUIRIES FROM
COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO WHETHER
THOSE IMPLICATIONS WERE REAL
WERE PUBLICLY STATED AS NOT TO
BE DUE TO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
A MISUNDERSTANDING AND A
LABELING OF THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT
WASN'T READILY APPARENT TO
PARKS. THAT THERE WAS THE
OVERLAP. WITH THAT SAID, I DO
THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REASONABLY EXPECTED OF THE
PARKS DEPARTMENT TO KNOW ABOUT
THIS OVERLAPPING OF THE
PROPERTIES AND THAT IS
SOMETHING FROM THE COMMITTEE
PROCESS I AM DISAPPOINTED IN .
I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH PARKS
TO MAKE SURE THE FUTURE, GIVEN
THE VOLUME OF LEGISLATION WE
HAVE THAT DEALS WITH THE
REMEDIATION SWAPPING OR
ACQUISITION OF SITES THAT WE
WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT A MIXUP
LIKE THAT IS NOT REPEATED IN
THE FUTURE WHEN IT HAS
IMPLICATIONS FOR WORK THAT
DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE
BEEN DOING. I DO JUST WANT TO
STATE ON THE RECORD THAT I
REGRET THAT THAT IMPACT TO THIS
PROJECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD IN THE DISTRICT
COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.
WHILE THIS SOLICITATION IS
IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD PASS IT
TODAY, THAT DID CAST A BIT OF
A SHADOW OVER THIS PROCESS.
WITH THAT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I
DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
REMARKS.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS TO COLLEAGUES
REGARDING THIS ITEM ASK
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK
THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS FOR HIS
WILLINGNESS TO PUT A SLIGHT
HOLD ON THE FINAL VOTE ON THIS
LEGISLATION WHILE I DID SOME
FACT-FINDING . THE
COUNCILMEMBER IS CORRECT THAT
THE SEATTLE PARKS DEPARTMENT,
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE OFFICE
OF PLANNING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BEGAN A SITE
PLANNING PROCESS FOR ONE OF THE
PARCELS IMPACTED BY THIS
LEGISLATION. THE PARCEL
REFERRED TO BY SOME AS THE
ELECTRIC PARCEL . THAT PLANNING
PROCESS BEGAN IN LATE 2021. THE
DEPARTMENTS AT THAT TIME WERE
WHERE THERE WERE MANY
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN
SOUTHPARK LOOKING FOR A
LOCATION TO DEVELOP A BUILDING
THAT COULD HOUSE COMMUNITIES
SERVING NONPROFITS AND THE
DUWAMISH AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MEMBERSHIP INCLUDED MANY OF
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. AND SO,
OPCD AND SPR BEGAN MEETING WITH
THE COALITION TO LEARN ABOUT
THE NEEDS SO THEY COULD BE
CONSIDERED AS POSSIBLE SITE
ELEMENTS FOR THIS LOCATION
ALONGSIDE OPEN SPACE SHORELINE
HABITAT AND OTHER PARK
ELEMENTS. COMMUNITY INPUT HAS
BEEN SOUGHT FROM THE SOUTHPARK
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ,
VIETNAMESE SENIORS , DUWAMISH
SUSTAINABLE ASSOCIATION, THE
USE CORE. THERE HAS BEEN INPUT
AND INFORMATION THROUGH THE
DUWAMISH RIVER FESTIVAL,
COALITION ON ASTHMA AND
AIR-QUALITY EVENTS, AND THE
DRC COMMUNITY COALITION LATIN
FOCUSED MEETINGS FOR OUTREACH.
IN 2023, OPCD AND SPR MET
WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
BROADER UMBRELLA GROUP , THE
DUWAMISH AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COALITION, OF WHICH MANY OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS I NAMED ARE PART
OF TO DISCUSS THE ECOLOGY
AGREED ORDER , HEAR THEIR
CONCERNS AND SHARE WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT KNOWS ABOUT THE
PROCESS AND TIMELINES. THERE
IS ALSO A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER
WHERE THEY WERE PROVIDED WITH
AN UPDATE ON THE AGREED ORDER .
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS SHARED
WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS THERE
WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 4 1/2
YEARS UNTIL CLEANUP COULD BE
COMPLETED AS THE TIMELINE HAS
ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THE
EXISTING BUSINESSES WOULD
REMAIN THROUGH THE END OF THEIR
LEASE. IT HAS BEEN HELPFUL FOR
ME AS A COUNCILMEMBER
REPRESENTING THAT COMMUNITY
THAT , TO GET AFFIRMATION FROM
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, NOT ONLY
CLARIFYING THE INFORMATION I
RECEIVED IN ERROR THAT THE
SITE WAS NOT PART OF THIS
ORDER, BUT ALSO CONFIRMING THAT
THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
WERE INFORMED THAT THIS
MINIMUM OF 4 1/2 YEARS UNTIL
CLEANUP WAS UNDERSTOOD BY
EVERYBODY WHO HAS INTEREST IN
THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF
PROPERTY FOR A MULTISERVICE
BUILDING AT THE LOCATION. SO
AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS FOR
ALLOWING ME THIS TIME, AS WELL
AS APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO CLEAR
UP THE MISUNDERSTANDING. THANK
YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? NOT SEEING ANY. ALL
RIGHT. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE PASSAGE OF THE
BILL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ] EIGHT IN
FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE BILL PASSES. THE CHAIR
WILL SIGN IT. MADAM CLERK, FIX
MY SIGNATURE TO THE LEGISLATION
OF MY BEHALF. WE DID NOT HAVE
ITEM NUMBER TWO, SO WE WILL GO
TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. PLEASE
READ ITEM NUMBER THREE INTO THE
RECORD.
>> [ ORDINANCE READ ]
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THIS DOES THREE THINGS.
INTRUDES UP THE 2023 ADOPTED
BUDGET SO THAT THE CITY TOTAL
APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY MATCHES
THE AVAILABLE GRANT BALANCES IN
SEVERAL OF THE FUNDS FOR HSD,
SPECIFICALLY THE HUD SYSTEM OF
RECORD REGARDING GRANT AMOUNTS
. IT ELIMINATES UNNEEDED
APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY IN FIVE
DEPARTMENTS FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DOLLARS
THAT WERE ALLOCATED IN PRIOR
YEARS THAT HAD GONE UNSPENT.
AND LASTLY, IT PROVIDES THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT WITH
THE APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY
NEEDED TO EXPAND $7 MILLION OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUNDS ON FACILITIES FOR
POST OVERDOSE AND OTHER
SUBSTANCE ABUSE CARE. THE
FACILITIES THAT ARE BEING
CONSIDERED , ONE IS A FACILITY
FOR A POST OVERDOSE SUBACUTE
STABILIZATION CENTER FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
EXPERIENCED IN OVERDOSE OR ANY
MEDICAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO
SUBSTANCE USE . THIS FACILITY
WILL PROVIDE MEDICAL
STABILIZATION FOR INDIVIDUALS
IN NEED OF THE SERVICES FOR UP
TO 23 HOURS. IT IS A VERY HIGH
PRIORITY FOR THE SEATTLE POT
FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE SECOND
FACILITY IS IN OUTPATIENT
TREATMENT CENTER FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITH OPIOID USE
DISORDER AND OTHER DRUG
DEPENDENCIES THAT WILL OFFER
LOW BARRIER ACCESS. IN
SEPTEMBER, THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT UPDATED ITS 2023
NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY
TO REFLECT THE NEW PLAN REQUEST
FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS
FUNDING . THAT REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS IS ANTICIPATED
TO BE RELEASED IN NOVEMBER
WITH THE CONTRACT START DATE IN
2024 BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY OF
ADDRESSING THESE NEEDS. I WANT
TO FLAG THAT CENTRAL STAFF
IDENTIFIED ONE ISSUE, WHICH IS
GIVEN THAT THE LEGISLATION
PULLS TOGETHER FUNDS FROM
NUMEROUS CITY DEPARTMENTS , A
PRACTICE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL
TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENT AND
ACCOUNTABLE USE OF FUNDS AND
FEDERAL FUNDS IN THE FUTURE
WOULD BE A SEPARATE FUND FOR
THOSE REOCCURRING HUD GRANTS
AND TO PROPOSE FINANCIAL
POLICIES FOR THE FUND AS
APPROPRIATE. I AM GOING TO BE
WORKING WITH COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF TO TEE UP THAT IN THE
BUDGET PROCESS. I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES VOTE IN FAVOR OF
THIS BILL. THEY CAN.
>> ANY COMMENTS FROM
COLLEAGUES?
>> NOT SEEING ANY. I'M GUESSING
YOU WRAPPED UP YOUR COMMENTS AS
WELL. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ] EIGHT IN
FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE BILL PASSES. THE CHAIR
WILL SIGN IT. MADAM CLERK,
PLEASE FIX MY SIGNATURE TO THE
LEGISLATION ON MY BEHALF. IT
LOOKS LIKE ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS
ALSO WITH COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD. PLEASE READ INTO THE
RECORD.
>> [ RESOLUTION READ ]
>>
>> THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF
THIS RESOLUTION IS TO
MEMORIALIZE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT
THE COUNCIL HEARD AT THE
AUGUST 8 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
FUTURE SEATTLE POLICE
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
BARGAINING, AS WELL AS FROM OUR
THREE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
BODIES. THE COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED
SIMILAR RESOLUTIONS IN 2020
BEFORE THE CURRENT ROUND OF
NEGOTIATIONS . THE PUBLIC
HEARING ITSELF IS REQUIRED
UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR
TO BARGAINING WITH THE SEATTLE
POLICE UNIONS. THE PRACTICE OF
ADOPTING A RESOLUTION
MEMORIALIZING WHAT WE HEARD, I
THINK THE BEST PRACTICE FOR THE
COUNCIL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE IS TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE ITEMS
THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES HAVE
FLAGGED FOR US FOR
CONSIDERATION. WITH THE
RESOLUTION BEING PASSED BEFORE
BARGAINING, IT IS HELPFUL ONCE
WE'RE OUT THE OTHER END OF
BARGAINING TO LOOK AT THE
ISSUES THAT WERE FLAGGED BY THE
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS AND
COMPARE THOSE GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES THAT THE PUBLIC HAS
FOR WHAT WE ACCOMPLISH IN THE
CONTRACT AFTER THE BARGAINING
IS COMPLETE. THE BARGAINING,
ONCE IT BEGINS, IS
CONFIDENTIAL. THE MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC AND THE
ACCOUNTABILITY BODIES HAVE BEEN
VERY HELPFUL IN PROVIDING THEIR
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT, IN ANY
WAY, LIMITING THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO WILL BE BARGAINING THE
CONTRACT WITH S PMA -- SPMA
IN THE FUTURE. IT SIMPLY
CAPTURES WHAT WE HAVE HEARD AND
CREATES A PUBLIC RECORD. THE
CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT WITH SEATTLE POLICE
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION EXPIRES
ON DECEMBER 31, 2023. THE
RESOLUTION REFERENCES
IMPROVEMENTS IN POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE
CONTRACT THAT THE COUNCIL
ADOPTED IN 2022, WHICH ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THEY
INCLUDE A NUMBER OF ITEMS FROM
THE 2017 ACCOUNTABILITY
LEGISLATION. AGAIN, WANTED TO
LIFT UP THE SUCCESS OF THE LAST
BARGAINING ROUND WITH SPMA. IT
IS IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THEIR COOPERATION AND
COLLABORATION IN REACHING OUR
GOALS TO ENACT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ACCOUNTABILITY LEGISLATION IN
THE LABOR AGREEMENTS. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THEIR LEADERSHIP AND
EFFORT. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
SUPPORT FOR THIS RESOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU HAVE
BROUGHT ONE OF THESE
RESOLUTIONS BEING THE CHAIR OF
PUBLIC SAFETY . I KNOW YOU AND
I AND COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THESE
ITEMS SINCE 2016. WITH THAT, IS
THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT
DIRECTED TO THE CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE BEFORE WE GO TO A
VOTE? COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
YOU ARE GOOD TO MOVE TO A VOTE?
>> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL ON THE
ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION?
>> [ ROLL CALL ] EIGHT IN
FAVOR AND NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED. THE CHAIR WILL SIGN
IT. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE FIX MY
SIGNATURE TO THE RESOLUTION.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
PLEASE READ ITEM NUMBER FIVE
INTO THE RECORD.
>> [ RESOLUTION READ ]
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
IN 2017, THE MASONRY POLICY
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED --
BUILDINGS WERE TO --
CONSTRUCTED WITH BRICK OR CLAY
WALLS WHERE PARAPETS ARE NOT
SECURED TO THE ROOF AND FLOORS,
MAKING THEM VULNERABLE TO
EARTHQUAKES. IN THE FOUR YEARS
FOLLOWING THAT REPORT, I WORKED
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, STATE
LEGISLATURE, OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION AND
COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO BUILD
TOWARDS AN APPROVED 2021 CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION. THAT
RESOLUTION REPRESENTED A JOINT
COMMITMENT BY THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL TO WORK ON DEVELOPING A
PHASED MANDATORY SEISMIC
RETROFIT PROGRAM. LED BY THIS
RESOLUTION, A URM PROGRAM
MANAGER HAS BEEN HIRED, WHO HAS
LED THE DEPARTMENT TO RELEASE
THE 2023 DRAFT URM RETROFIT
TECHNICAL STANDARD AND
DIRECTORS RULE. THESE OUTLINE
PATHWAYS FOR URM PROPERTY
OWNERS TO BEGIN MOVING TOWARDS
COMPLIANCE WITH FORTHCOMING
MANDATORY URM RETROFIT
REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THESE
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT
IN PLACE YET. WITH THIS
RESOLUTION, IT CREATES THE
INTERIM STEP BEFORE THOSE
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE
READY TO BE ADOPTED . IT
PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY TO
PROPERTY OWNERS AND STATES THE
CITY INTENDS TO USE THIS
TECHNICAL STANDARD AS
COMPLIANCE STANDARD IN FUTURE
LEGISLATION . THAT NEXT STEP IS
ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A
VOLUNTARY COMPLY REQUIREMENT
OR OPPORTUNITY , A VOLUNTARY
PROGRAM, TO ALLOW PROPERTY
OWNERS BEFORE THE MANDATORY
PROGRAM GOES INTO EFFECT TO
VOLUNTARILY COME INTO
COMPLIANCE USING THIS TECHNICAL
STANDARD. AGAIN, ALLOWING SOME
PROPERTY OWNERS TO VOLUNTARILY
COMPLY AND START -- START WORK
EARLIER IS PERCEIVED BY MANY ,
BUT TICKLY THOSE IN THE
COMMUNITY THAT ARE MEMBERS OF
ASAP , AS HELPFUL TO THE
OVERALL EFFORT. AS WE KNOW,
YESTERDAY EVENING WE RECEIVED A
REMINDER THAT EARTHQUAKES ARE
UNPREDICTABLE . WE ARE
FORTUNATE THAT LAST NIGHT OUR
REGION ONLY EXPERIENCED A SMALL
EARTHQUAKE, BUT WE KNOW THAT
THE BIG ONE CAN HAPPEN AT ANY
POINT. THE SOONER WE CAN GET
BUILDINGS INTO COMPLIANCE, THE
SOONER WE CAN PROTECT THE
RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS OF
THESE BUILDINGS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US
THAT THE BIG ONE WILL COME.
APPRECIATE THAT. HELPFUL NEWS.
ANY COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES REGARDING
RESOLUTION 32111? I AM NOT
SEEING ANY. I'M GUESSING WE CAN
GO FORWARD WITH THE VOTE. WITH
THAT, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
EIGHT IN FAVOR AND NONE
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. THE RESOLUTION IS
ADOPTED. THE CHAIR WILL SIGN
IT. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE FIX
MY SIGNATURE TO THE RESOLUTION
ON MY BEHALF. MOVING ON TO
ITEM NUMBER SIX. PLEASE READ
ITEM 6 INTO THE RECORD.
>> [ ORDINANCE READ ]
>>
THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. COUNCIL BILL 120661
WAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED BY
SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES TO
UPDATE THE LITTER CODE. THE
UPDATE FROM SPU ESTABLISHES AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS AND UPDATES BEES TO
DISCOURAGE ILLEGAL DUMPING IN
THE CITY. WERE HER THE
LEGISLATION TWICE IN OUR
COMMITTEE AND UNANIMOUSLY
RECOMMENDED PASSAGE TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FROM
THE FOR? NOT SEEING ANY. MADAM
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> [ ROLL CALL ]
EIGHT IN FAVOR AND NONE
OPPOSED.
>> THINK ABOUT THE BILL PASSES.
THE CHAIR WILL SIGN UP.
MEDICAL, PLEASE FIX MY
SIGNATURE TO THE LEGISLATION ON
MY BEHALF. WE ARE DONE WITH
COMMITTEE REPORTS. MOVING ONTO
THE AGENDA, NO ITEMS WERE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THERE ARE NO RESOLUTIONS
FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND
ADOPTION TODAY. WE CAN KEEP
GOING. ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO
COVER BE -- BEFORE I ADJOURN?
ALL RIGHT. I DO NOT SEE
ANYTHING. WITH THAT,
COLLEAGUES, THIS CONCLUDES THE
ITEMS THE BUSINESS FOR TODAY'S
AGENDA. THE NEXT REGULARLY
SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
IS FOR OCTOBER 17 , WHICH WAS
COUNSELED, THAT MEANS THE NEXT
MEETING IS OCTOBER 24. AGAIN,
IT IS OCTOBER 24. WE HAVE DONE
THAT TO ADJUST AND ACCOMMODATE
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQEDA, THE
BUDGET CHAIR. THANK YOU ALL. WE
ARE ADJOURNED.