Public Safety Committee 9/15/2026

And good morning.

The public safety meeting will come to order.

It's 9.36 a.m.

September 15, 2026. I'm Robert Kettle, Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Lin.

Here.

Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Sacca.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present, one excused.

Actually we have both Councilmember Juarez and Councilmember excuse until they arrive.

Thank you.

This morning I don't have a prepared chair comment but I did want to say that I have seen reports regarding the new gun violence plan and I'll speak to this this afternoon.

I was offered a in brief yesterday morning, but with yesterday's schedule was not possible.

I did read the count of the plan.

There's one piece that's very interesting to me, which is new and noteworthy in my book, and I'll speak to that this afternoon during our council meeting.

But I did want to say that I think that the council's efforts as it relates to gun violence intervention and reduction can be paired with, you know, elements of what the mayor and the administration's looking to do.

because I've worked with the Seattle Police Department on this area for a long time, the care department for a long time, and other stakeholders here in the city, both in government and out of government.

And I do believe that we can move forward on gun violence, and we have to do it as a team.

But I think, again, that our efforts and the mayor's efforts can be worked together.

But we have to do this building on what we've been working on thus far as a city, as city government, up to this point.

So with that, I note that Councilmember Rivera is arrived and here.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We'll now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the preview of this committee.

so you can talk anything about public safety more broadly.

Although I suspect the comments will be down one main area.

Claire, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

Chair, we currently have 12 in-person speakers signed up and there are eight remote speakers.

Okay, each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with the in-person speakers.

You said 12, so we'll probably go through the in-persons fully and then move to the...

remote.

Can you please first read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

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

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

The public comment period is now open and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-speaker, in-person speaker is Marta Kader.

I probably mispronounced that.

Please correct me.

Good morning, Marta.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Marta Kader, but no worries.

Thank you council members for taking the time today to hear from community and providers alike on the vehicle resident assistance permit program legislative package.

My name is Marta Kidana and I'm the Community Engagement Manager at the Low Income Housing Institute.

And again, I would like to thank you all for your time.

Firstly, I would like to thank Council Member Dan Strauss for the work he has done to prioritize the needs and safety of our unhoused neighbors living in RVs.

Lehigh, much like our Seattle community members, would love to see impactful support of those living in RVs and on their pathway to permanent housing.

When discussing programming designed to meet these needs, we have to take into account why someone would live in these often unsafe conditions rather than other emergency shelter options available.

What we have seen is that people want to maintain control over their environment and for various reasons from personal safety to mental health benefits of being in control and again being able to have that level of privacy.

We as a non-congregate shelter provider have seen this in our own programming as well.

This means, from our perspective, that referrals through this legislation would need to keep that in mind in order to increase the likelihood that someone would say yes when being offered a referral.

That's why we request that referral options be non-congregate shelter or housing, but they need to be specific in order to be able to, again, make that a good service match to those that are unhoused and living in RVs.

and additionally we would like to request that the permit the permitting process be delayed so that an RV safe lot an additional RV safe lot can be brought online because our glass yard comments RV safe lot is 72 parking spaces but we want to see substantial support system available before we see a permitting process come online but we do appreciate the plan thank you thank you

The next in-person speaker is Sharon Lee.

Good morning.

I'm Sharon Lee, Lehigh Executive Director.

And first, I want to thank Council Member Strauss for creating pathways to housing for RV dwellers.

We think this is very, very important.

And we also want to thank Council Member Kettle for showing up the Glass Yard Commons Groundbreaking.

It was amazing, so exciting to see the utility poles, the utility poles that are going to connect to the RVs so that the RV dwellers can get case management and services.

I think this is a little known fact, but the RV dwellers actually have a higher rate of exiting to housing.

than a traditional tiny house village, because they are already living in a space that they control.

And so we think a second lot is very important.

And if the city council can make sure that a second RV lot gets funded, either out of the five million or in the 2027 budget, and we actually found a lot.

It is close to District 2. So we are very excited that there could be a second lot very soon if we can get your help.

And the Glass Yard Commons is gonna open in November and we invite you all to come and celebrate with us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next in-person speaker is Donna Anderson.

Hello, my name's Donna.

I'm a regional operations manager for the Low Income Housing Institute.

And I wanna echo the sentiments of Sharon and Marta.

Thank you, Councilman Strauss, for working on this bill and getting all this together.

So my comments today have to do with, I see a lot of what I call front end action, which is how to get the RVs off the street, how to do all the things with the vehicles, but I haven't seen a lot yet on what the back end looks like.

So for example, if half of the RV dwellers right now said, yes, I will accept your appropriate shelter, we don't have that appropriate shelter.

So I would just want to say that Salmon Bay, our first RV lot, was successful.

And I think all the clients who are now housed and working and making a better life for themselves would agree.

So the appropriate shelter is necessary.

That is a place for them to park their RVs while they can work on that next step.

So I would hope that some of the five million that seems to be allotted to extra outreach would not only go to shelter, but maybe we reallocate that to the outreach we currently have.

So quality over quantity, right?

Give them more resources to do what they do, which is help with the permitting, help with vehicle tabs, help with all the titles and things that the RV people need to do to one day get rid of those RVs and move on into housing.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Beatrix Kelley.

Thank you council members of the Public Safety Committee and thank you council member Strauss for your focus on the people living in RVs across the city.

My name is Beatrix Kelley and I am the low income, I work for the Low Income Housing Institute.

And last week I had the privilege of attending the Glass Yards Common groundbreaking ceremony.

This Lehigh property not only has a tiny house village, but also offers 72 RV parking spots for clients.

Along with a space to park a vehicle, clients receive case management and behavioral health support.

Many times RV residents are living in their vehicles because in the past they've been consistently let down by the system.

In order to break this narrative, we need to offer a stable place for people to be able to receive services that this legislation outlines.

Glassyard Commons can only hold so many program participants, and with a thorough permitting process such as the one proposed, resources will run out quickly.

We need more funding for a second RV safe lot so that RV users have a space to settle while they transition into housing.

We strongly encourage directing a portion of the $5 million proposed to a second RV lot and delaying the permitting process until funds supporting the system structure have been secured.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Craig Thompson.

Good morning.

I live on North Beacon Hill, as many of you know.

We have a minor RV camping problem in the area, yet what we really are facing are vans and SUVs where people are living and indeed now are prostituting young girls.

There are at least four underage girls I spotted this weekend who are being prostituted in my neighborhood, and that includes out of vans and cars.

The vans and cars are actually associated with a drug trade.

but it's not just the drug trade that is driving the violence and the sort of exploitation that is taking place in my community.

Last week, a man with a long gun was pointing his rifle at the corner of 12th and Massachusetts.

No, 12th and Atlantic.

And he fled into the woods.

The situation that we have is not safe for people living in their RVs, people who are relying on their vehicles.

In my last few minutes, I'd like to say one thing about people who live in RVs.

I've known people who live in RVs who take good care of their vehicles.

who have been fishermen, who have been working in Alaska and needed a place to put their stuff.

Not all of the RVs that you find on Seattle streets are necessarily houses for people who are homeless.

They can be retired people.

They can be workers.

I think there needs to be some type of differentiation.

to a large conclusion about everyone who was in the RVs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Steve.

We need a better Seattle, and in public safety, it's been a long time we haven't had it.

Feet on the ground.

showing the flag, being there.

They say that's part of parenting and other things, actually being there is kind of important.

And behind that, you've gotta raise a reasonable number of detectives so that those people, when they go out, have an expectation there'll be some investigation that something might possibly be done.

Now, I believe that crime has gone down in Seattle by suppressing statistics.

The one you can't suppress, though, is dead people laying there.

Damn media.

They just keep going around.

They take pictures, and they talk about it and stuff.

So that lately has shown its ugly head in a high, high amount, much more than I, as a native Seattleite, expected in my lifetime.

So we need not so many plans, but some action.

And that's a bit of a problem.

If you're gonna handle vans, you ought to be looking at vans getting people off the street.

The middle 90% is usually forgotten in Seattle.

Most of us, if we owned, I don't own a van, but you can't park them on the street.

It appears there are privileged people who can't.

And we need to take a look at taking care of that middle 90%.

Our current mayor wasn't elected because she was so well known and well loved.

The referendum on the past mayor is what made her mayor.

And it may happen again.

And the people that many of you replace.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Angelique Wilson.

And if I mispronounced your name, please correct me.

Good morning.

So we get four minutes, right?

I'm sorry, your names, Angelique?

Yes, I'm Angelique.

And your partner?

And I'm Cassandra.

I'm Cassandra Corbett.

We are too.

I'm the clean queen and she's skills to live and we are an RV outreach program.

Okay, you got two minutes each.

Are you going to be doing this together together or just two minutes and then two minutes?

I'll be next.

Okay, back to back.

Okay.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Angelique Wilson and I'm here partnering with my sister,

I'm here partnering with my sister, Cassandra, and we have an RV outreach program.

Since we began this outreach, we went directly into the RV community.

We completed needs assessments.

We distributed essential hygiene and cleaning supplies.

We provided meals and gas assistance.

We help people move their RVs when necessary.

And mostly important, we listen and build relationships.

In District 1 alone, within just one week, we serve approximately a little over 20 people directly through our outreach.

Councilmember Strauss, we want to speak directly to you.

We've been following your work, we've been reading what you've said about people living in vehicles, and we've been paying attention to the Vehicle Residence Assistance Program.

You said the city did not have a comprehensive strategy for helping people living in vehicles move towards shelter and housing, and that the current approach to RVs was not working.

We heard you.

And when we went out into the community ourselves, we saw some of those same unmet needs.

We didn't just read about the problem, we went out and met the people living in it.

And something important started to happen.

People began believing that there was hope.

Some of the people we met had stopped believing anybody was coming back.

Now they're looking for us to come back as we speak.

That means something to us, and we do not want to fail them.

We cannot make promises that are not ours to make, but we can promise that we will continue to show up, stay connected, tell people the truth, document what they need, and do everything within our reach to help move them forward.

What we heard the most was fear.

People expressed fear that they were afraid to leave, even long enough to shower.

They feared their property would be stolen or tampered Okay, start the two minutes again.

So we're gonna start the two minutes.

Good morning, council members.

The mic please.

Good morning.

Good morning, everybody.

Good morning, council members.

Can you hear me now?

My name is Cassandra, Cassandra Corbett Jackson, president and CEO of the Clean Queen Incorporation, a non-profit organization.

I'm also the executive director for the Clean Queen and Skills to Live outreach RV outreach program.

where we have been building a body of work in the community directly and specifically for people living inside their motor vehicles.

Our mission is to work to restore the dignity, hope, stability, and independence of our people living in RVs and motor vehicles.

Through our own funding, we have been providing hygiene essentials that could last them up to two weeks, cleaning supplies, lunch and snacks bags, gas cards when they're being tagged, help with some vehicle repairs, clothes and blankets.

We want to do more.

We are already doing the work, gaining trust, touching hearts, spending time, and building relationships.

We assess them, document hours in service, investing our own funds to help meet immediate needs and meeting our people where they are.

The Clean Queen and Skills to Live is asking the City Council to help us to take the next step and support in identifying and building a pilot space where we can bring our people out of RVs and motor vehicles into a safe, structured environment like temporary or permanent housing.

We also need direct connection to resources and funding that can help us expand the work we have already started.

We are already at the table doing the work.

We are asking the city to come to the table with us.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Hallie Willis.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Hallie Willis.

I'm the policy manager for the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, commenting on the proposed suite of legislation regarding people living in RVs.

We support the sponsor's work to develop safe lots, storage, and additional shelter for people experiencing homelessness, including those living in vehicles like RVs.

However, we have significant concerns about the permit program and the proposed changes to parking rules.

Those need significantly more work before you take them to a vote.

As currently written, it's complex, expensive, and punitive.

The proposal creates a significant risk that many people who can't get a permit will have their vehicle and all their belongings impounded, leaving them to try and survive on the street without access to any shelter at all.

We recommend postponing a vote on the permit program and corresponding parking regulations until we actually have the shelter and housing and structures in place that people need.

Instead, we urge you to move forward with creating the additional safe parking, shelter, housing, expanding quality outreach, and then evaluate if additional steps are needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Mon.

Molly.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Good morning.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Mon Hong.

I am a resident of Finney Ridge in your district, Dan.

And I just wanted to represent the residents of the city where I've lived here for 13 years and have seen this persistent issue continue and I'd like to understand and want to know how this rule or this legislation is going to improve and alleviate or address the fact that there's not enough enforcement currently, and even though you have rules already in place, they are already not being enforced.

And so we see quite a lot of vehicles and RVs even in are Finney Ridge neighborhood near the zoo where they're not being addressed and they're not in the industrial zones.

So how is this new legislation going to provide enforcement?

and then on top of that I agree the permitting process seems to be excessive, difficult, and cumbersome for both the permit holders and the permitting agencies.

I'm not sure whether or not this particular policy or set of legislation is going to address the problem of enforcement and really moving folks into the areas that they need to be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Daisy DePaulus.

Hello, council members.

My name is Daisy DePalis.

I, too, am a resident of Finney Ridge.

I'm actually a neighbor of Mons.

I would like to reiterate some of the comments here today.

I think there's a differentiation between abandoned vehicles and actually RVs that people live in.

We actually have six RVs parked next to the zoo right now that are not lived in.

You could buy them any time of the day.

There's nobody in them.

There's drug activity around them.

They're dumping feces and urine down the the walls through to the zoo park.

Children walk by regularly to go to the zoo, which is one of the highlights of Seattle, and they see these parked vehicles stuffed full of garbage, stuffed full of lumber.

Nobody can get into the cab, and nobody seems to be ticketing them.

Nobody seems to be towing them away.

These are not vehicles that people are living in.

I drive down Market Street going to Ballard.

There's a car parked right on the street that's full of garbage that nobody seems to be addressing.

So reiterating what some of our comments are today, that differentiation needs to happen.

There also needs to be enforcement of the existing laws.

It's fine to keep doing these studies.

It's fine to keep doing these additional laws, but we're not actually enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

I realize that we don't have enough police officers in Seattle.

There are citizens that are concerned about these situations.

Maybe you deputize some of the citizens to make some of these maps for you to know where these vehicles are in the neighborhoods.

I could walk around my neighborhood, which is Ballard, Fremont, Finney Ridge, and Greenwood, and within two hours, I could give you a map of all the vehicles that need to be addressed.

So this is not insurmountable.

People are here to help you.

We just need to figure out how to get this done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Sam Wolf.

Good morning, counsel.

My name is Sam Wolf.

I work for PDA as the local policy director.

I'll start by saying that I appreciate the complexity of vehicle residency response and the need for the additional resources that this legislation seeks to stand up.

The primary issue I'd like to surface is the proposed expansion of eight new FTEs under HSD to facilitate the permitting process.

Now this is obviously a difficult budget season, and it's also a time when the city's homelessness response system requires all available resources to be put towards high support shelter, other supportive services, and expanding our permanent housing portfolio.

Recognizing that we can't continue to add operational positions to the city's homelessness response, I'd advocate that these functions be achieved within the scope of existing FTEs.

Partners from the pre-FIFA Streets to Housing push in Pioneer Square have proposed a reorganization of the city's homelessness response, building off of successes and lessons learned from that project.

The proposal would retain the city's current operational FTE capacity, but restructure for efficiency and improved outcomes.

We believe that the vehicle resident response team can be incorporated into this structure and be achieved with existing operational resources.

And I'd like to advocate that council consider building out of that proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last in-person speaker is Howard Gale.

Good morning.

Chair Kettle, your good government's pledge says, I will prioritize fulfilling my oversight responsibilities of the city departments to make sure that they are delivering results.

And yet in three years now, there has been a failure of oversight for SPD abuses of protesters, people in the streets, and the consistent killing of people in crisis.

Complete failure of oversight.

Just recently I brought to your attention the fact that the CPC voted, just a couple of weeks ago, an illegal vote, secretive and illegal, by the co-chairs, Joe Merkel and Tasha Johnson, that violated the CPC's own bylaws, Open State Public Meetings Act, state and federal constitutional protections on free speech.

They voted, secretly to prohibit someone in the community from speaking, someone who has experienced the most serious harm by police, someone whose brother was killed by the police.

Another of your pledges, I will draw on progressive values, our work to create good policy rooted in evidence-based studies.

Yet you and many on this committee have actually hyped fear instead of facts.

One example, We just had, yesterday, downtown Seattle crime has plummeted.

A very good review in the Seattle Times.

One of the things it points out, which we have been telling folks for decades, is that when you use, quote, evidence-based policing to suppress crime in one neighborhood, it simply moves to another.

And that's exactly a very hard fact database study shows.

Last thing I'll mention is, Amazingly, in your own committee, you heard the staffing levels from 2020 to 2026. Staffing levels, actually deployable officers, have remained the same or gone down, while crime has consistently decreased.

Putting the lie to the notion that if we simply have more police, we will get lower crime.

The fact is, there is zero correlation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move to remote public comment.

The first remote speaker will be Castile Hightower.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt of you have been unmuted.

You have been unmuted.

My name is Cass Dale and in 2004, my brother Herbert was murdered by Seattle police while experiencing a mental health crisis.

Less than a week after the 22nd anniversary of my brother's murder, I learned that someone else died under suspicious circumstances while in Seattle police custody over the weekend.

And just like when my brother died, SPD's story is not adding up.

SPD claims that the victim, whose name has not yet been released, died after rolling to the ground after SPD handcuffed him or they admittedly stated that he was unable to speak or care for himself.

However, witnesses are stating that he died after being kneeled on, similar to how George Floyd was murdered in 2020. Firstly, why is SPD handcuffing people who are not committing a crime, who are not fully conscious?

And based on the eyewitness accounts, why is SPD restraining people until they lose complete consciousness?

Since the consent decree ended, there has been less transparency which adds to the little to no accountability that already exists as the police budget continues to increase.

I am calling for the immediate release of the body cam footage, the names of the officers involved, and for the City of Seattle to use the 2027 budget to invest in resources for victims of police violence, so that his family and so many like his are not further harmed by a lack of access to support during extreme times of trauma.

Because while Seattle's house is concerned for victims of gun violence, as you should, it continues to deny any government assistance for the brutality we continue to face at the hands of the police.

Our families, our communities deserve to be kept safe, not grossly neglected or murdered by the police when we are in times of need and distress.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Genevieve.

Genevieve.

You have been unmuted.

Please press star six.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Genevieve Courtney.

I live in North Beacon Hill.

Sorry, I'm home sick in bed today, but I still wanted to comment.

I am a volunteer park steward for Dr. Jose Rizal Park.

North Beacon Hill is still in crisis.

We had a 90-day plan and we have seen no change post that 90-day plan from the city.

Just in the last week there was fentanyl users blocking the entrance to my condo.

Police did not come when 911 was called.

These folks sat up there for hours making it impossible for people to get in and out from our condo without going by people smoking fentanyl.

We had multiple break-ins into our condo community where items were stolen and Someone had pooped all over the deck of our conduct and multiple people inside our community in locked stairwells, smoking fentanyl.

We've had two lockdowns of the schools here in North Beacon Hill in the last week due to threats of gun violence.

As Craig Thompson said, there is children being prostituted in this park.

There is open drug users, open drug dealing in this park.

I've seen multiple men selling drugs, holding guns.

All this gun violence is connected to what is being allowed to happen in this park.

And why isn't it changing?

I just thought Seattle Times state that crime is down downtown.

That's simply just because it's been displaced somewhere else, and a lot of it has been displaced up here.

and now we're dealing with it and crime is not down, it's just down in one place and up in another.

And now we're having to deal with walking our kids to school past drug dealers wondering if we're going to get hit by a stray bullet.

Our next remote speaker is Rose.

Rose, you have been unmuted.

Hello.

Emergency response in the city has been in crisis for quite some time.

The killing that happened this last week where the police just didn't respond to somebody and then allowed them to die is indicative of how emergency response is throughout the city.

In West Seattle two weeks ago, a trans woman, three weeks ago now actually, a trans woman almost died because when she called emergency response, they refused to send an ambulance to her door, made her wait two hours for an ambulance to show up, and she almost died of meningitis.

She is still dealing with the repercussions of that.

It is insane in the city that if you call about someone smoking a cigarette in Cal Anderson, you can get the cops to show up in 20 minutes.

But when I call about somebody being beaten to death in my apartment in the International District, the cops don't show up for two hours despite repeated calls of me desperately asking them to.

People throughout the city do not trust SPD or the emergency services to show up.

This is something that falls very square on this committee, especially with the hamstringing of the care department.

If the police won't show up and care can't show up, what it means is that people are dying in this city.

and it is entirely because we are putting extra money into the cops that are not showing up.

There needs to be a real hard look, especially at this budget season, where we're putting this money if individuals are not doing their jobs of what the basic for what the city should be.

Because continually throwing more and more resources at something that isn't working is not helping the issue.

We cannot have continual and extreme overtime for a police force that does not care about people.

People are dying.

What are you all going to do about it?

Because if this doesn't get dealt with soon, things are going to get worse.

Our next remote speaker is Margaret.

Margaret, you have been unmuted.

Please press star six.

Good morning.

My name is Margaret Shield and I'm a co-facilitator of the Lake City Task Force on Homelessness, speaking today as a longtime city resident.

Thank you to Councilmember Strauss for addressing a challenging area of our homelessness crisis that has long been neglected.

A street near our home is periodically a place where people in RVs gather and it's been difficult to say the least for the nearest neighbors.

It's an ongoing frustration that there aren't safe legal places for people to live in their vehicles, at the same time there isn't enough shelter and housing.

So this is an important time for action.

I hope the Council will support the legislation's provisions to fund dedicated outreach workers for people living in RVs, to create multiple RV safe living lots with sufficient capacity, to create real pathways into shelter and housing that match the needs of individuals living in vehicles and to offer RV storage so that people don't have to give up their property.

But as I read through these bills, I was disappointed that there's not a lot of clear plans or performance metrics about those actions and instead primarily a focus on creating a new permitting bureaucracy that seems rigid, costly to taxpayers, and very difficult to enforce.

The staff report goes on for about three pages about those challenges in enforcement.

It seems the one time point in time permit system is so rigid that it will even block people visiting in Seattle in their RVs or campers from staying near their family and friends.

Creating a big new towing and impound bureaucracy that ends up kicking more people out onto the streets or into different types of vehicles doesn't create the solutions we need.

It's just a different type of sweep.

We don't even yet have a census of the number of people living in RVs and trailers, but we know it's large.

So let's do the outreach while we're creating more RV safe living lots.

Let's grow the carrots.

Let's create that hope before we wield the enforcement sticks.

I look forward to...

Our next remote speaker is Janice.

Janice, you have been unmuted.

Janice, please press star six.

Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

I am Dr. Janice Clark, founder and visionary of Safe Homes since 1995. Good morning, Chair Kettle and the rest of the members of the Public Safety Committee.

I rise today with a raspy voice to ensure that women veterans certainly that live, work, play, worship, stay in Seattle are included in any policy decisions that are being made.

We created the Women Veterans Division of Safe Homes in 2009 to address the unmet needs of women veterans and to ensure that every woman veteran has access to safe housing and trauma-informed healing.

and certainly economic opportunities.

I rise in the difference of as reading the summary and fiscal note as well, it states that there is no fiscal impact.

That was concerning because I wasn't sure how can it not be a fiscal impact based on the three-page staff report that's already been lifted up.

and some of the other speakers previous of me about what the cost is going to be or allegedly the increase in cost.

So that was two points.

One, fiscal note, there certainly is a fiscal impact no matter how great or small.

And secondly, any legislation about housing, please include us in the conversation to ensure women veterans are also included in there.

So thank you for your time this morning, and I look forward to submitting some written reports for you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Elle.

Elle, you have been unmuted.

Please press star six.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Hi, I'm LB in District 4. I'm also calling today to say that someone died in SPD custody on Saturday night in Georgetown.

I want to thank the other two commenters who also spoke on this today.

I wasn't sure that this would be mentioned at all.

The tiny amount of news coverage and public statements say that SPD detained a person who police say was, quote, unable to clearly speak or care for himself, unquote.

At one point, the person somehow ended up on the ground and then was placed in handcuffs and died sometime after that.

It's very likely that the person died in handcuffs.

It's happened before.

This latest death at the hands of SPD is at least the fourth death in the time since the consent decree was lifted only a year ago, the others being the fatal police shootings of Jack Pallilli on October 30th, Christian Nelson on December 2nd, and Christopher Bowman on February 12th.

And so far, as far as I can tell, there has been no official release by the city, SPD, or Isak King County of the names of any of the cops who killed them all of these months later.

Our next remote speaker is Hannah.

Hannah, you have been unmuted.

Please press star six.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yep.

Okay, my name's Hannah Ziff.

I'm really interested in safety and economic vibrancy through the lens of real estate.

I think that creating a new permit for residents of vehicles is a great idea.

All residents should have permits.

And we're about to see, this is really ahead of its time because our city's about to see a huge wave of people living in vehicles.

It's a trend that's about to hit our city.

So I wanna thank our council members for putting this on the docket.

I think it's safety for the people in their vehicles as well as for businesses and residents not in our vehicles.

And I think the main point that I want to make today is I'm really skeptical of people who are going to be opposed to this.

I think that there's always room for improvement.

But I want to ask detectives to actually trace who's going to be opposed to this because I think the main people are gonna be human traffickers.

We're in a dangerous position right now where it's more profitable to do crime for some areas and some aspects of the population than it is to do real estate development.

So for instance, I'm really glad that somebody mentioned all of the trailers along the zoo.

That's a really good example.

and we need to be tracing who's organizing this because it's bringing down the real estate prices around here and it's actually part of a bigger scheme.

So thank you for making our .

Thanks, bye now.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is David Haynes.

David, please press star six.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

When is the city council going to petition the governor to deploy the noble use of the National Guard to set up some first world quality encampments, authorized encampments, with all the first world quality utilities?

It would take them 10 days, less than 30 days, man.

Instead, we got nonprofits tasked with trying to pull it off by 27. Are you guys going to issue more permits for the RVs for the drug pushers and the junkie thieves who use those things as mobile headquarters?

Are you going to decipher the difference between an innocent homeless person who's going to be inadvertently persecuted because they showed up, couldn't get documented, and their RV gets impounded, but yet all the junkies, nobody wants to judge them.

And, you know, quite frankly, the reason you need the National Guard to set up the land for the RVs is you have to have those RVs plugged into an electrical plug.

You cannot have those junky, drug addict, alcoholic, chain smokers running their generator right next to some tent or somebody else's RV.

You people are Hoarding and not deciphering the differences to put people on a path, a proper path.

You're pretty close to it, but you keep exempting drug pushers.

You keep backing like you don't want to judge certain criminals because you got to sympathize with the devil.

but innocent people are suffered in this community.

I live in Lower Cooley, and I'm trying to get the fuck out of Seattle, because it's evidence that the police chief swept all these evil pieces of shit from downtown in the Belltown, and they made it impossible to fucking get in for yourself.

The new law are pulling your punches in the crime fighting.

The new law have approved all the bad policies that Bruce Wayne created for running an affair for his criminal underworld.

And yet, You guys want to bring you signal how Baltimore is going to save us when they have 220 non-thoodle shootings.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker is Joe.

Joe, you have been unmuted.

Please press star 69, star six.

I was a 90s child.

Joe, are you there?

Joe, please press star six.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Can anyone hear me?

I can hear you.

All right.

Thank you.

I apologize for technical difficulties.

There was a link between the phone and the computer, so it was somewhat my fault.

Moving on quickly, I had a respect for the committee's time.

This is Joe Kunzler here, a regular caller and a big supporter of Council Member Kettle and the Seattle Police Department.

I really think I also appreciate Council Member Strauss and him proposing a bill to deal with these RVs.

It's for president environment.

It's a disgrace in the city of so many great defenders of the environment like Heidi Wills and Dan Strauss and Shefali Ragnapoplin and her great patriots.

that Seattle in 2026 cannot figure out, it has to work on park RVs.

It's not safe to have them on the streets.

It's not safe for those that walk and get around, bike and use transit to have RVs just parked anywhere.

They need to be in a safe lot in a place where the fluids, and we're all adults, we know what I mean, can be dumped where drug use is prohibited.

And finally, on a personal level, I hope the committee at its next meeting will subpoena the mayor and her staff to answer questions about those text messages because she just ran away and cowered in the corner of an elevator from Q Durating's Dan Griffin and it's going all over X right now.

So you may want to get that mayor of yours down there to answer some tough questions or maybe submit a resignation.

I'm not going to offer myself.

I think Council President Collingsworth would be a fine mayor of Seattle.

So with that, thank you for all you do.

God bless protect our brave first responders as well as our brave city council.

I want to have a great day and go Seattle Channel.

Thank you.

The 60-minute period for public comment has expired.

I want to thank everyone for coming out, the Lehigh team, and I can attest the Salmon Bay Village project did help the community, and I was really very happy to be at the Glassyard Commons last week for the groundbreaking of the RV tiny home location there.

I also want to thank North Beacon Hill being represented, of course, Fremont.

I'd like to welcome Ms. Meng Hung and Daisy from Finney Ridge and I just wanted to highlight that in Find It Fix It there's three options related to vehicles abandoned vehicle slash 70-hour parking ordinance parking enforcement and then scooter and bike share issues it's really important Find It Fix It for everyone to use because it goes to data which I'll speak to shortly as well.

For Mr. Gale, please send me an email on the CPC matter.

And to your point, we do, last meeting we had the fire department here talking about 911 and the nurse line.

doing our duty, oversight, in terms of good governance and everything along those lines.

And so, oh, and I really want to thank the Clean Queens for coming today.

Thank you so much with your skills to live.

Very nice, I appreciate that.

And for all those that have called in too, Rose, I hear you, and all the other callers as well.

Okay, with that said, we'll now proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public are encouraged to submit either written public comment on the sign-up cards available at the podium, or they can email us at council at seattle.gov.

All right, we'll now move on to our six items of business, package, if you will.

Will the clerk please read agenda items one through six and to the record?

CB121279.

CB121-280, CB121-281, CB121-282, CB121-283, and resolution 32216.

Okay, excellent.

The six items have been read into the record to allow us to discuss all six items at one time, you know, because it is presented as a package and central staff has joined us at the table.

Will you please introduce yourselves for the record?

Good morning, Amanda Allen with central staff.

Good morning, Jennifer LeBrec, central staff.

Okay, I am chair of this committee and so, but with this topic, I have a council member Strauss joining us who's not a regular member of our committee, but we have brought this topic to committee because of the obvious public safety concerns that we have with RVs.

Not all of them to some of the comments that we've mentioned before, but definitely there are some public safety challenges as it relates to RVs on our streets.

So with that introduction, I'd like to welcome Council Member Strauss who's been here for the public comment too and I should have noted that here today.

And Council Member Strauss, can you do an introduction and then we'll pass to central staff just to begin their presentation.

Thank you.

I'll be brief and speak at things at a high level right now.

I know we're about to get into a very in-depth presentation.

So thank you, Councilmember Kettle and colleagues for hearing this legislation today.

We're here because as the Clean Queen said, there is no comprehensive strategy to address people living in their streets.

The fact that we are relying on a nonprofit that I don't even know if you have city contracts right now.

I mean, we have two contracted outreach We have dedicated programs for families who are homeless, for people who have intense drug issues, for youth, for immigrants.

We do not have a cohesive strategy for people who are living in their vehicles.

So that's one of the buckets of today.

There is the other bucket of how do we regulate the motor vehicles that Meng and Daisy talked about that are not being lived in.

that are so full of garbage that you can't get inside of them, and yet they're still there on the street.

So that's another part of this conversation.

Part of that is because we do not have a motor home definition in our code.

We rely on a large vehicle definition.

It is vague.

A lot of the enforcement questions that both of you brought up today, and I'm happy to chat with you after committee as well, is that there are loopholes in the existing laws that people can take advantage of.

and that is where we need to tighten the regulations, specifically around RVs, not because people live in them, but because they are larger than other vehicles, which makes them dangerous to be on some city streets.

They were built with a set of chemicals, for the most part, in many cases are outlawed today.

If you think everyone in this room, we all got rid of our Nalgene bottles a decade ago, right?

because it has BPA in it.

Those same technological advances of understanding of what is and is not a dangerous chemical have occurred many times over from PFAS to BPA in the last 10 to 15 years.

And when we look at the vehicles that are on the streets today, the things that are within them are quite dangerous.

And that's not the people and that's not the belongings, that's the chemicals that it took to build these as well as RVs and motorhomes are built for habitation for three to four months a year, not year round.

And we need to be able to better regulate motorhomes and travel trailers while at the same time ensure that we're not leaving people out in the cold, that we're not leaving them worse off than they are today.

To Marta's point earlier, if we were able to have both RV safe lots open today, we might I don't know.

And that's where the permitting program comes into play to say the folks that we are not able to get inside today, that we give you the stability that you need so that I think it was you that came up and said people are worried about leaving.

They don't want to leave because there's stuff to be taken while they're gone.

These are the issues that we're looking to address because we know that the city's approach today to our visa is not working.

We're failing to provide pathways to housing for people in need who are living in their motorhomes, as well as we're failing to address the small group of people that are either hoarding their personal belongings in public space.

This is the conversation that public commenters brought up today and is occurring in other parts of our city.

and in short, we need to have this coherent strategy to help folks come inside.

This legislative package, the Vehicle Resident Assistance Program or VRAP aims to change that.

And over the past year, I've worked closely with city departments and service providers who work directly with vehicle residency to help create this policy.

For the service providers and the other spaces of addressing homelessness, we've had productive conversations and delay is not an option.

The reason I say delay is not an option is because everyone in this room continues to say we need the time to get this right and that time needs to happen between now and full implementation.

One of the conversations that we had in the service providers meeting last Friday was, should we delay this implementation until January or February?

And what I came away from that conversation with is that actually sets up our outreach workers and that sets up our service provider overall in a worse position because there's lack of clarity and the time to implement that new strategy.

in working with Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Lynn, thank you for your feedback and working with the service providers in the mayor's office.

You'll see one of the amendments that I have today is the check and adjust.

I think this is very much what Councilmember Lynn was talking to me about, and so at the end of the day, Councilmember Lynn might be running this amendment.

We'll see.

But this is just, this is what I'm talking about, of the check and adjust is in the same way with the high acuity work group, that we need to be working with the mayor's office, with service providers, with departments, so that we can check to make sure that this legislation is correct, and if not, that we make those legislative changes next January or February, ahead of the April 30th that we received, I don't know if it's been sent out to anyone.

I didn't laugh, I kind of chuckled, just to say in places there were, you know, saying we don't have one, you know, we're gonna use a staff member to do this, so it's gonna create a budget implication, but then on the other hand, it says that we need another one of these staff, so it's gonna make the program more expensive.

So I look forward to refining with departments and the CBO that fiscal note.

and it demonstrates the understanding that this is a go fast, go slow experience right now.

We're going fast right now to get what is a balanced proposal into law with a long effective date.

Most bills have 30 days.

This has many months and then it has another warning period This is set up so that we can check to make sure that we got it right and adjust before this bill becomes effective.

This legislation is about ensuring people who are living in their vehicles are not forgotten and that they're cared for.

because they're quite often overlooked.

And at the same time, it is about better regulating what types of vehicles are on our streets and where they are.

So of these five, six pieces of legislation, there's a resolution that ties it all together.

There is the vehicle resident assistance permit that is being discussed.

We have the outdoor storage, which is a land use bill so that we are able to store people's vehicles while they enter any shelter in our portfolio because today people who have vehicles oftentimes turn down shelter or permanent supportive housing because we've made a policy choice with our permanent supportive housing.

We don't build parking spots, we build more units.

and so this allows us to store their vehicle while they move inside.

We also have the Finance and Administrative Service Lease Authority so that we can get properties acquired quicker to open new safe lots.

The Glass Yards Commons that had groundbreaking this last week, congratulations to Lehigh.

Thank you for all of your work.

Bureaucracy has delayed this opening by three years.

When we opened the Salmon Bay Village on 15th, we saw an incredible downtick in the number of RVs on the streets of Ballard.

And then it closed and Glassyard Commons was supposed to open, but it's been three years.

This is why we need the signing authority, so we can move a little bit faster.

We also have the junk vehicle definition update for Daisy and Monk, there's two issues that are occurring on Finney Ridge right now.

One is that there's not clarity of what a motor vehicle, a motor home or travel trailer is, and so it is loose for enforcement.

There's not clear definition.

And then the second is that our junk vehicle standards are also unclear at time of enforcement.

And so the junk vehicle standards changes will change that to better inform and better allow So if there's a definition and more clarity in our junk vehicles, my hope and in the conversations that I've had, it will be easier to say, does this fit within the junk vehicle definition or not?

Whereas today, it's not clear in the sense of there was an RV on 8th Avenue.

Every single window was either spray painted across or broken out.

The windshield was, you could not see through it.

The vehicle did not run.

It took three attempts working with parking enforcement to get it off the streets because it was not clear that it was a junk vehicle.

and so that's what this junk vehicle definition update does.

As well as the last bit is our appropriations.

I have been working towards this for many years and thank you Council Member Saka for your support during budget of resourcing this program so that we are not adding to the structural budget deficit.

We've already incorporated this into our work.

There is $3.5 million ongoing and $1.5 million one time.

if that money rolls over that is $7 million, we'll have seven, eight, eight and a half, eight and a half million dollars next year and the fiscal note that was at the high end of the spectrum I think said $10 million, something like that.

So we're not, we're already not that far off.

There's still more work to do.

And that's the importance of the check and adjust conversation that council member Lynn has brought to me.

And I appreciate that.

And just the importance of getting another safe lot open.

We have to have two open at the same time all the time so that if one needs to close, we're not leaving people on the streets with no options.

And then to our friend from North Beacon Hill, received loud and clear your comments about vans, et cetera.

This is an important point that you make because the conversation that I'm having today about motorhomes and travel trailers is specifically about a type of vehicle and the regulation of that type of vehicle on our streets.

And if somebody is homeless and living in their vehicle and this legislation comes into effect, they can move into a 15 passenger van and continue to live the way that they want to live or the way that they don't have another option for.

But we are trying to create more options so they don't have to do that.

But also crime can also exist in many other types of vehicles.

And that's the, it's just a distinction that I wanna be very clear with everyone about.

There are zero items in this entire package that demonize or punish being a vehicle resident.

There's nothing in this bill that says you can no longer live in your vehicle or that you shouldn't live in your vehicle.

We are saying that for motor homes and travel trailers, they no longer are appropriate types of vehicles to have on our city streets for more than two hours at a time.

Thank you, Chair Kettle.

I'll get into each of these bills a little bit later, but I wanted to, I already talked too much.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

And I appreciate the comments.

Obviously this goes across the cities, but those industrial districts, District 1 with my Vice Chair Saka, yours, District 6 and also District 7 are areas where we challenge.

Then again, but it's not limited to those districts.

Okay, central staff, I believe I have my briefing set up here because each agenda item has briefings in it.

So I think I'm set with the title page and then the overview part, okay?

So over to you.

and I'm just working on sharing my screen.

Thank you for your central staff memorandum as well.

Oh, you're welcome.

All right, Councilmembers, here we go.

Today we're talking about the Vehicle Resident Assistance Permit Program legislative package that Councilmember Strauss has just helpfully outlined for you all.

and if I can get this to move forward in the screen, there we go.

Today we will be giving you an overview of the package, discussing our issue identification and giving you a preview of the amendments that have been proposed so far and talk through what the next steps look like.

So just starting out with the legislative package, it contains six different pieces of legislation, starting out with a resolution that gives kind of the broad arc of the goals of this package, then moving into the actual permit program.

We'll also touch on legislation that changes, adds to the definition of outdoor storage and the land use code.

And there's a fourth piece of legislation that gives the finance and administrative services director authority to engage in certain types of leases that's related to the implementation of this program.

Fifth, we'll be talking about the junk vehicle definition updates that are being proposed and closing out with an appropriations ordinance.

So Jen will start us off.

Okay, Amanda and I will be doing some bouncing back and forth this morning.

So the Vehicle Resident Assistance Program is a resolution, just states the goals for this legislative package.

I'm not gonna read through these bullet points.

I think we've been through them a few times, but this is really just tying together the six different, or five other pieces of legislation.

Jeremy, just the one thing that we haven't talked about that is contained in this resolution is that at full implementation of this program, we will be removing eco blocks from the streets.

It has been talked about of who would do this.

We have a number of different city agencies that use these eco blocks for many different things from landscaping to city operations.

And so we would be happy to retrieve them for anyone.

So just noting that that is part of this.

Thank you.

Turn it back over to Amanda.

All right, so let's walk through the Vehicle Resident Assistance Permit Program legislation.

The focus of this legislation is to create a permit program for large lived-in vehicles.

So these are vehicles larger than 80 inches wide.

The current law allows these vehicles to park in the right of way anywhere in the city subject to posted signs and also requires that these vehicles park overnight only in industrial zones.

The proposed legislation would change the law to allow only two-hour parking for these types of lived-in vehicles that do not have a permit.

and it would prohibit unpermitted vehicles of this nature to park overnight in the city.

Permitted vehicles would be allowed to park in the city during the day, subject to any time restrictions that are posted.

and can park overnight in industrial zones as outlined in their permit.

There will be geographic areas where they would be required to park overnight.

Let's see.

I think those are the main pieces about the changes in parking.

So just moving on, this legislation really rests in the development of a director's rule that would be established in coordination with the Seattle Department of Transportation, SDOT, the Human Services Department, and the Seattle Police Department.

So the vehicles that are eligible for this permit program would be identified through a one-time census.

And in order to be eligible for the program, the person applying for the permit must be the registered owner of the vehicle.

Anyone not captured in the census may not receive a permit.

permit conditions are that you retain your permit and you are then brought into a system of case management and service delivery and offered eventually, although there's no specific timeline delineated, offered Shelter.

If you refuse shelter six times, then your permit is revoked.

This role of verifying when people receive offers of shelter and compliance with permit rules is identified as a role for the Human Services Department.

Okay, so I mentioned earlier a little bit about geographic areas.

So the permit holder is assigned a geographic area, which is, held within an industrial zone and them staying within this geographic area is a condition of their permit.

Permit conditions would include other things like the maintenance of their vehicle, maintenance of the surrounding areas.

So not having trash accumulate outside of their vehicle and to comply with current laws.

any unpermitted motorhomes or travel trailers could be towed without notice.

And there is an intention to allow three infractions to take place before towing occurs.

That's included in the recitals of the legislation.

As far as a timeline of implementation, we have included in the legislation a go live date of April 30th of 2027. After April, there will be 90 days where only warnings would be issued and then begin full implementation July 31st of 2027.

Okay, I'll be reviewing the remaining pieces of legislation.

The third piece is an update to the Land Use Code.

It updates the definition of recreational vehicle in the Land Use Code to note that it may contain its own motor or may be towed behind a motorized vehicle.

and this is in large part to ensure that the definition aligns with how a motorhome or travel trailer is defined within the traffic code.

It updates the definition of outdoor storage to include storage of unoccupied recreational vehicles or other formerly lived-in vehicles and it adjusts the definition of a flexible use parking to exclude storage of recreational vehicles.

and the intent of all this is to essentially allow the city to fund or to allow the standing up of a vehicle storage program as people transition into shelter or housing.

The fourth piece of legislation has to do with lease authority for the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or FAS.

You'll probably recall earlier this year, council passed a piece of legislation that would allow the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute leases up to 65,000 square feet without needing council approval if the sites were to be used for transitional encampments.

This does something very similar, which would allow the FAS director to execute leases for sites being used, also for outdoor storage of vehicles or overnight respite areas for drivers, and it would increase that authority from sites that were up to 65,000 square feet to up to 100,000 square feet.

The fifth piece of legislation.

Oh, is this you, Amanda?

I think this is you.

Yes, this is me.

I get to talk about junk vehicle definitions.

OK, so the current definition for a junk vehicle is Let's see, the definition has different criteria that vehicles would meet in order to be defined as junk vehicles.

And if a vehicle is determined to be junk, the current rule is that those vehicles could be immediately towed The current definition includes language that is quoting extensively, a vehicle that is extensively damaged or a vehicle that is apparently inoperable.

And the changes that the council member has proposed seeks to make a little more clear what we mean by extensively damaged and apparently inoperable.

We also have added to the criteria of possible reasons for a vehicle to be considered junk of one, the vehicle identification number or the VIN number is obscured or not easily visible and two, that the vehicle does not have any license plates.

And I'll just say that the proposed legislation does exclude any permitted vehicles.

So if you're in the vehicle resident permit program, then you are excluded from the junk vehicle definition.

Okay, and the sixth piece of legislation is the Appropriations Bill.

As Councilmember Strauss already mentioned, there is $5 million in the human services budget in 2026 for work or for activities related to vehicle residents.

the appropriations bill would create eight new positions.

One is a permit tech in SDOT in order to administer the program and then seven outreach staff in the human services department to provide the outreach and case management that we've been talking about.

This bill would also transfer about $200,000 in appropriation authority from HSD to SDOT to pay for that staff position and also to pay for IT costs related to building out Excella.

and then it would modify some existing provisos, or sorry, it would modify an existing proviso to ensure that funding could be spent on any type of vehicle resident, not just a resident of an RV.

And it would impose a new proviso of two million, restricting funds to be used for outreach, capacity building, but also capacity building and increased staffing.

to organizations that do case management, along with providing other types of services that help vehicles meet code requirements.

Chair?

Councilmember Strauss.

Yeah, just before we jump into issue identification, I want to thank Jennifer and Amanda.

I believe that the issue identification that they raise is the correct set of issues that we still need to work through.

I have a commitment to continue working with the mayor's office on these issues of implementation.

I have a commitment to continue working with departments to ensure that we're doing this correctly.

and for all of these issues that are being raised right now, I believe that there is a pathway forward to be able to either resolve them or navigate this program in a way that does not create unnecessary risk, unintentional harm, and it is absolutely central staff's job to say, here's what could go wrong.

and I really appreciate the way that you've worked on this and I just wanted to flag from the outset that this is a set of issues that we still must address and I believe that we have a pathway forward.

Thank you.

Before moving on too, I just wanted to note that this is a very comprehensive package of legislation related to this issue and obviously the last one's appropriations.

We do have our select budget chair and then on slide...

Seven, obviously legislation three, land use.

Fortunately, our land use committee chair is also on this committee as well.

These kind of things help bring this together in this committee, again, with the underlying thought that we have to address the public safety challenges that we have.

So essential staff, let's move to the issues that are being raised, identification.

Okay, great.

Thanks for getting us kicked off in that direction.

We're gonna talk through five different issue identification topics.

The first one is enforcement challenges.

So the effectiveness of this program really depends on the coordination between a variety of departments and also depends on the effective enforcement of the rules, both the existing laws and the ones that are being proposed.

Currently we have challenges with enforcement given a variety of things notwithstanding the approximately 20% vacancy rate of our parking enforcement officers.

This program would create new enforcement responsibilities for PEOs and create a new class of vehicles, these permitted resident vehicles.

Impounding motorhomes and travel trailers has unique challenges given their size and this legislation doesn't fully address that.

Once impounded, there are also specific challenges including those related to the Homestead Act.

Can I just add one thing too around specific challenges related to recreational vehicles or really any lived in vehicle, which is that they are lived in.

And so I think it's not possible or I believe legal to tow a vehicle that has somebody inside it.

So that's just the reality that for a vehicle that has someone inside it, we have a situation where parking enforcement officers might need to either wait that person out or the only other option might be to get SPD involved, Seattle Police Department to remove someone so that can make impounding of lived-in vehicles more difficult.

Thank you.

and I'll just say there's not an intention here to tow people's vehicles that they're living in.

I think that that's, I just need to say that because as we've heard from the public comment, there's a lot of vehicles out there on our roadways that are not lived in.

And for the folks that are living in their vehicles, we really need to take that moment to make sure that we're centering and getting them the assistance that they need.

Sorry, I know that was a little off.

Both of us were off script, but I just wanted to reinforce that point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Number two.

Okay, operational complexity.

So again, the legislation was really requiring this close coordination between HSD, SDOT, and SPD, and that level of interdepartmental collaboration may prove to be difficult.

Strong executive sponsorship and sustained operational leadership will really be key to launching this program.

The legislation calls for a director's rule, as mentioned before, and really gives discretion to the executive on how best to implement this permit program.

So through the legislation, we're not being prescriptive about exactly how it needs to be implemented.

and at the same time, this strategy carries a certain amount of risk of lacking in clarity of roles and responsibilities that could potentially implement or sorry, hinder its implementation, especially around enforcement.

Jen, do you wanna take?

Yeah, I'll do this one, thanks.

So uncertain, the next issue is around uncertain budget implications.

Given operational complexity, actual costs to implement the program may be higher than what is included in the fiscal note that was attached to the bill.

I do wanna note such costs, however, might be one-time or temporary in nature, especially given how the program is set up as a one-time census.

you know, some of these costs will not be ongoing as we sort of, there's attrition with residents of motorhomes or travel trailers.

And again, we already covered this, but there is money in the existing budget to pay for activities related to supporting vehicle residents.

I do want to take a moment to note Council Member Strauss mentioned that there is some updated information from the Budget Office regarding the cost of implementing this program.

I sent out an email just a few minutes ago forwarding that information from CBO.

I just want to flag for folks, I do have some questions on that, especially around trying to understand what's a new cost, what's an existing cost.

There will be more information coming your way, but just given that we don't have a lot of time, I wanted to make sure everyone had the same information.

and please just expect me to send maybe some additional context once I have a chance to talk to CBO.

Thank you.

Okay, the fourth item is related to eligibility criteria, including the idea of having a one-time permit window.

So as mentioned, we're really, this legislation is set up currently to create a one-time census developed by HSD.

So anybody who is not captured in that census is not eligible to participate in the permit program.

and also another issue that's been identified is that only registered owners can participate in the program.

We understand that there are a number of people who live in RVs who may not be the registered owners.

And so this leaves out a sizable share of people currently living in RVs on our streets.

Nothing in the legislation precludes folks from seeking services if they're not part of the program.

And so just to be clear that while the permit program is intended to streamline the experience of achieving shelter, if you don't have a permit, it doesn't mean that you may not receive any kind of service.

So people living in unpermitted vehicles may seek other types of shelter as a result of this legislation.

They might end up moving into a tent or some sort of smaller vehicle if they feel like that is a better option given the restrictions on having a permit.

and the fifth issue is related to the impact on motorhomes and travel trailers that are not used as residents.

So some Seattle residents may own a motorhome or travel trailer and live in an apartment, live in a house and they are going to find that whereas previously they were allowed to park this motorhome or travel trailer on the street according to whatever restrictions there are, now they are on a two hour limit.

Similarly, if a person were to have a visitor come who was visiting them in a motorhome, they're gonna find themselves with the same restrictions, two hour parking, no overnight parking in the city.

And again, the folks without permits are subject to the impound without notice.

So that's immediate impound.

and I'll just note again that I think we've mentioned this, but the legislation does include in its recitals a clause citing the intention of the council that there would be an issue of three infractions prior to towing.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so we've had the bills spoken to, we've had issue identification.

Now, Council Member Strauss, is it best, I know there's some amendment concepts or should we just have basic questions?

Like normally I go to my vice chair if there's any questions to start off.

I'll just say I really appreciate this whole conversation.

So it's kind of at your discretion.

Since we do have the amendment concepts, I might just run through them unless folks have questions.

Well, you have a set?

Because I've not seen them.

This is my first time, too.

Well, can you give a rundown, then, of the amendment concepts?

And then we'll turn it over to questions.

Sorry to interrupt just for a moment, but we do have, it's part of the presentation I sent out.

I don't know if that's helpful to you to know.

We did send out an updated version of the presentation today, so we can cover that.

Our central staff can run through those if that's helpful.

Paper.

Paper.

Every time.

Over to you, Ms. LeBrecq.

Sorry, I meant to mention that at the beginning that we had sent out an updated copy.

Okay.

We will just run through the high level amendment concepts here.

I will say that this is not an exhaustive list.

There are some that are still being considered that are not on this list.

So just to give people a sense of sort of a realistic sense of overall volume.

I'll run through the first five on this page are all Council Member Foster would be the sponsor.

So those include, and they are all to the permit program.

So we would modify, the first one would modify program eligibility requirements by allowing vehicles to be added to the program on an ongoing basis and not just if captured during the census.

The second one would also modify eligibility requirements by striking the requirement that eligible participants be the registered owners of the permitted vehicles.

The third one would authorize SDOT, the Seattle Department of Transportation, to create a permit program to allow owners of truly recreational vehicles where no one is living in them to park on the streets near their house for more than two hours and to park overnight.

The fourth would modify impoundment requirements for motorhomes and travel trailers over 80 inches in violation of the permit program by requiring three warning notices to be issued to vehicles before impoundment.

And this would essentially apply both to vehicles that were unpermitted, but also to permitted vehicles that were out of compliance with the permit program.

So let's say a permitted vehicle that was parked in a residential area overnight.

The Fifth Amendment would require a minimum number of warnings.

There's a typo in there.

It should say a minimum number of warnings to permit holders before initiating the revocation of a permit.

And it would also request that outreach staff or city staff work with permit holders to meet permit requirements in an effort to avoid revoking permits.

Let's see, the next two amendment concepts are from Council Member Lynn.

The sixth one here would require that the census be citywide and also require that the census include information on how many potential motorhomes and travel trailers may be ineligible for the permit and obtain information to help the city determine what services are needed for the population impacted by this program.

The seventh one, also by Councilmember Lin, would request a report on the proposed director's rule that will guide implementation of the permit program and provide the implementation plan for the program with information on scope of work for city staff, partnerships with service providers, and options for shelter, housing, and safe parking.

It also requires that the director's rule include a definition of appropriate shelter.

The remaining amendments are from Council Member Strauss and they'll be on the next two pages.

So the eighth proposed amendment would request a work group to provide regular check-ins on development of the Director's Rule and an implementation plan for the program with adjustments to be made 60 days prior to the effective date.

The ninth amendment proposed amendment would add Seattle Public Utilities to the list of departments to be consulted in developing the Director's Rule.

The 10th would clarify that a motorhome must have facilities for one out of the three, lodging, cooking, or sewage disposal.

The 11th here would amend the definition of motorhome to increased width.

We would revise requirements.

The 12th here would revise requirements for geographic service areas to require that they be aligned with city and contracted outreach zones.

We would also, going on to the next page, we would add language stating that the director's rules should address property return standards if the vehicle is towed.

The 14th, the next three would all deal with the appropriations bill and not the permit bill.

It would define specific costs for contracted outreach startup and program expansion costs.

So we already have a proviso, and this would just have more specific information for how much to a proviso for these specific uses, including contracted outreach startup and program expansion costs, how much will be spent for each city department, and then essentially what's remaining and how much in specifying that remaining amount should be spent on shelter storage and safe lots.

The 15th Amendment would ensure that a recreational vehicle buyback program was allowable under the provisos, and the final one would remove a recital that noted the possibility of future amendments to the bill, since Councilmember Strauss is essentially proposing those with the two I've described above.

That's it.

All right, well, thank you.

Is that the second?

I've addressed the mystery.

My paperclip version did not have the revised, revised.

But if I had my stapled version, then I would have had all the amendments in there.

So fear not, I do have them.

So good.

OK.

With that said, go ahead.

Would it make sense to do the final slide just on timeline and next steps?

Yes.

OK.

Can I do that?

I'll do it.

All right, so timeline and next steps.

We're here today, or sorry, no, September 8th, that was a couple weeks ago.

So we have already discussed these at the September 8th meeting.

We're here today, September 15th.

where we did discussion, issue ID, and discuss the high-level amendment concepts.

Next Tuesday, September 22nd, there is another committee meeting.

There will be a public hearing for the outdoor storage definition bill.

That public hearing is required because it's a land use bill.

And then there will be a discussion and possible vote on all six bills, including amendments.

Just want to note that three of these six bills are also subject to SEPA, and so that 21-day comment and appeal period ends on September 29th, so essentially a full council can take action after that date if there are no appeals.

And so if there were to be no appeals, October 20th would be the first possible full council vote.

Yes, thank you.

Of course the 22nd of September public safety meeting also has our follow-up on the bite of Seattle with SPD and the mayor's office.

Okay now now that with that said Vice Chair Councilmember Strauss, would you like to do like one last piece before I go over to my vice chair?

I'll just take last comment if that's all right.

Okay.

Well, I guess what I'll say is I'll work with the amendment sponsors.

Some of these are things that I can support.

Some of them I need to learn more about to understand where they're coming from.

and the continued conversation with the mayor's office about implementation, a lot of the success or failure of this will come from implementation.

And as I said this morning in my phone call to a member of their team, I stand ready to help in any way possible to make sure that this is a success.

So I'll just wrap up at the very end.

Thank you.

And you're reminding me too, as chair, obviously you're not part of the committee and neither is council member Foster, but as chair, facilitating these amendments, even from non-committee members, to include those from Council Member Lynn.

Okay, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

First off, I want to thank Council Member Strauss for your leadership in putting this very comprehensive package together to address a significant challenge in our neighborhoods and our communities here within the City of Seattle.

I also want to clarify that This problem is so profound and is so challenging that there are certain neighborhoods that are worse off than others.

And for crystal clarity, everyone deserves to walk in their neighborhood without potential fear or concern about being confronted with unsafe and let's be clear, unsanitary conditions in their own neighborhoods, near parks, that is completely unacceptable.

Unsafe and unsanitary conditions, not only for the people who live in nearby residences, but equally important and applicable for people living in these unsafe and unsanitary conditions, many of which are suffering from severe behavioral health challenges.

They need help, they need support, they need services, they need housing.

So the status quo situation in Seattle is completely unacceptable.

And some neighborhoods we know are worse off than others when it comes to the problem of lived in vehicles, lived in vehicles.

And I am the council member that proudly represents District 1, West Seattle, South Park, Georgetown, Pioneer Square and Soto.

And one thing you should know about District 1, in addition to the fact that it's number one for a reason, is when it comes to this particular challenge.

District 1 is disproportionately represented by any measure or specific reporting period for UCT's reports on lived-in vehicles.

District 1 has between two and three times the concentration of lived-in vehicles as the next closest council district.

We're way overly represented.

There are some reasons for that.

Was it about 84 square miles of the city?

The city of Seattle, roughly 84 square miles.

All of our districts are roughly equal in proportionality with respect to population, District 1 has a lot of industrial lands.

So Soto and the Duwamish Valley, the Duwamish Valley is not exclusively industrial lands.

Regardless, it's completely unacceptable.

People deserve better.

People living in those neighborhoods deserve better.

People living in those unsafe and unsanitary conditions deserve better.

I wanna read for a moment a recent constituent experience from my own constituents in District 1. Councilmember Strauss was privileged today to have some of his own constituents showing up and sharing their perspective firsthand.

I'm gonna take a moment to read one from my own constituents last night.

The constituent, Will, from Elkai, states that, on a longer email thread to my office, there is a daily line of campers parking on the street.

Some stay the night and others stay for days, weeks, some have been for months.

And all they do is move up and down the block once a week or so.

Yes, I'm saying they ticket residents and ignore campers.

That pertains to some conversation below the thread, which in itself is unacceptable, total head-scratcher, we're gonna ticket residents and not have a uniform, consistent, but a compassionate set of standards for folks, goes on to say, this is key, I've been told by parking enforcement that there is nothing they can do about it because People living in their cars and campers have different rules and they can't make them go.

This may be your office's first time you're hearing about it.

We hear about it regularly.

But myself and my neighbors have been reaching out to parking enforcement by phone and by the city's Find It Fix It app and nothing has been done.

Campers, buses, vans, There's even people staying off and on in tents on the park lawns from a constituent that's fed up in Alki.

And by the way, Alki, there's definitely some problem RV activity in Alki.

But I also wanna share that some of the Some of the worst activity when it comes to this challenge is in some of the more working-class neighborhoods in my district.

I'm talking about Del Ridge, talking about Highland Park, I'm talking about Georgetown, I'm talking about South Park and others.

But circle back to what I said at the outset of this conversation.

Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own neighborhoods and their own communities.

Everyone deserves to be able to walk the streets and parks and not have to worry about unsafe or unsanitary conditions, regardless of whatever your neighborhood.

And same thing for people in Finney Ridge, Greenwood, Laurelhurst, Ballard, across the city.

So I appreciate and applaud the comprehensive nature of this challenge or of the proposed package here to address the challenges that we continue to be confronted with.

very, very comprehensive approach.

And as amended by some of the amendments makes it even more comprehensive, although I need to study the concepts and then more importantly, the actual amendment language personally, but the base bill as amended, very comprehensive approach.

I still do have some questions around you know, potential reporting requirements, how we can beat those up, make those better.

I'm a firm believer in the power of leveraging data to make informed better, more effective and efficient decisions.

Secondly, you know, I'm wondering about sensitive areas and neighborhoods, specifically schools, preschools, playgrounds, playfields and parks, and the adequacy and sufficiency of the way that the bill as amended treats and addresses those specific sensitive areas.

Third and finally, you know, I want to make sure that the package captures Most types, the overwhelming majority types of potential lived-in vehicles, no such thing as perfection.

But we need to make sure and do the work that it captures the overwhelming majority of the lived-in vehicles, because what I don't want to see as part of this is create a mechanism where we effectively to create an illicit or secondary market for vehicles that are specifically circumventing the new rules and ultimately evade being subject to the new regulatory framework, which would be an unfortunate unintended consequence, if you will, in my view.

But overall, significant challenge Absolutely true, and I want to underscore the comment from my constituent.

I've been told by parking enforcement that there's nothing they can do about it because people living in their cars and campers have different rules and they can't make them go.

It's partially true, and we can't do more, and the perception is reality.

It is what it is. but what I like about this bill is it addresses the lack of overarching comprehensive plan and strategy and fills in that gap, removes barriers, and provides us with exactly that.

So thank you.

Excited to continue the conversation here.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And I understand Council Member Rivera's gonna be leaving, but we'll follow up as needed.

Thank you.

And Council Member Juarez, over to you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief.

So going over, first of all, thank you for highlighting what we think some of the issues are on the program itself.

And it is a lot of legislation.

But to reiterate what Councilman Osaka said just very briefly, this is the way I read it and still continuing to understand it.

It's a permit approach to those living in RVs on public streets.

a permit approach to those using public street spaces for RV storage.

And I think before we go any further, that's general understanding for the public, one thing kind of going on, what Councilor Saka said, is that as a city we do have to face the reality that we do have a problem.

that people are living in their RVs on public streets, and people are using public streets for storage of their RVs.

And for me, I most notably saw the explosion of this post-2020.

So, and it's clear, thank you customer Strauss for bringing this forward.

It is a bit unwieldy, but there's a lot here and it's needed that we've had no real public policy.

I don't even know the last time we've updated the whole RV position until the homeless thing really started exploding.

we have no public policy or law to specifically address the two issues that I raised, those living in their RVs on public streets and those using public streets to store their RVs.

So the permit process, and a lot of I'm reiterating for the public as well, it's a path to managing the RVs and providing services for those to transition from RV living to safe housing or safe lot or whatever.

So with that in mind, I want to kind of go to one of the issues that you raised.

I think I have two.

I have a lot of questions, but I can talk to you more offline.

On the eligibility requirements on page five, and this also goes to what Council Member Foster is raising on the census.

Would there be extra costs to requiring, I know we did the census because we would do the one night count and the different counts, but I think we've gotten to the point with our homelessness issues and people needing housing and services.

Is there more cost to having ongoing without calling it a census, because census means yearly or a time frame, a count that is revolving like Councilmember Foster put in her amendment.

Is there additional cost to that under HSD?

I'm just going to answer this for a minute.

I don't want to speak out of turn here, but we did As I mentioned, CBO sent us yesterday some estimated costs, and they did for the first time provide a cost of doing the one-time census, which honestly off the top of my head was maybe a couple hundred thousand.

So what I can say that I know at this point is there is a cost to doing the census.

I don't know if there would be additional cost to essentially updating that census over time.

I mean, we are also paying for, this package pays for seven additional outreach staff at HSD and expanded contracts to outreach providers.

So I think there'd be a conversation, does that increased capacity for outreach allow us to to do a census on an ongoing basis without adding a lot of additional costs.

And that's frankly a question I also have about the number for doing the census the first time around too, is like, is that on top of this additional capacity, outreach capacity we're adding, or can we use some of that additional outreach capacity to do the census?

I hope that makes sense.

Well, I think in the past we've done the count more anecdotally.

It hasn't been signed, excuse me, specifically.

We have never really, I'll just speak plainly, we have never actually had a system where we're out there on a rotating basis counting folks that are living in the streets and tents.

I think that is true.

I mean, we do our point in time count as required by HUD.

But honestly, that's a statistical sort of methodology that we use at this point.

So it's really, and I think what you're talking about to use a different terminology is like a by name list where you're going out and you're identifying every person and you're capturing their name and you're putting them on a list.

And we do not have that as far as I understand for every person who is living in a tent in the city.

There was just the initiative in Pioneer Square where we did it, right?

So when we do the encampment resolutions that are funded by the state, the right-of-way resolutions, we create a by name list.

So I think we tend to create those by name lists more for project-specific, location-specific efforts than we do sort of comprehensively.

Right, what I'm suggesting though is maybe we get laser focused on having and whether or not we can afford it, the city, a laser focused count on those folks because there's two criteria in order to be part of the permit program and one of them is you have to be captured in that census.

That's a requirement.

And number two, that you have to be a registered owner.

So I just want to make sure that people have an opportunity to become eligible.

I don't want this to make it so that they're excluded.

And if we're relying on HMIS or the one-night count, that's not really scientific.

They're just going out there and counting, which is fine.

But for purposes of costs and accountability and deliverables, I think that's where we're going to have a problem.

I do believe, I mean, and I can say with certainty that the way that I think Councilmember Strauss is thinking about this, but also HSD is that the census will be a separate dedicated effort to capture all people living in their RVs in order to, you know, cast as wide a net as possible to have people be eligible.

And the fact that HSD has added it as sort of a standalone cost suggests that to me, we could talk about, you know, whether or not that cost needs to be that high.

Okay, thank you.

On page nine, and we've kind of got over some of this offline, but on junk vehicle definition, I know that currently the code has six requirements in which the burden is on the city to meet three of the six requirements in order to be considered a junk vehicle.

So this would add two new criteria from six to eight, correct?

and that would be at the discretion of- It's a little bit more, I mean, those two criteria are sort of like sub criteria of one of the six.

So when you look at the code, it doesn't look like we've added seven and eight, but we have like, we've added more like a six B and a six C, but essentially they operate like two new criteria.

Okay, so can we, I'm sorry I'm being a little nerd here.

I'm looking at it and so where would that be under the junk vehicle definition update ordinance?

Right now a junk vehicle must meet at least three of the following requirements and there are six of them.

A to F.

So you're saying this would be a G subsection, or I'm just trying to get a little- Well, I'm gonna read it for you.

So it basically, number six used to say, or sorry, number six currently says, without a current certificate of registration, period.

That's what the six criteria is.

And it has been amended to say, or proposed, the proposed legislation says, without a current certificate of registration, with comma with an obscured or not easily visible vehicle identification number, current license tabs depicting the current registration expiration month or year or a current and proper vehicle license or a license plate.

So we have added some things to that section, which are not really just an expansion of what it means to have a registration, but are actually like new things that you would need to have.

Okay, well I must be looking at something different because I'm looking at a junk vehicle definition update ordinance and I'm looking at F without a current certificate or registration or a current and proper vehicle license.

That's from the city attorney's office.

So I think what's, are you in the permit legislation?

I'm looking at city attorney's memo, page seven.

We don't have to.

If I've got that wrong, then that's fine.

Yeah.

Can we follow up with you after?

I just want to, yeah, I just, so what we're adding then is, like you said, you're just going to, there's more verbiage, but the bottom line is my concern is the vehicle identification is obscured or not, is he visible?

All of these require and is subjective on the parking permit person to have to go out there and It'll still be three of six, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And so these two are actually, well, no license plate.

That's not subjective.

They can just say you don't have a license plate and you check that one off and then two more.

Okay.

And then obscure, not easily visible.

Can I ask why that's important?

to be a junk vehicle definition that they don't have a license plate or obscure, not easily visible?

I think what we're looking for in this amendment is just that the vehicle is compliant with all the laws about being operable and being verified by the state that it should be in the right of way.

So these are all things, you should have a license plate that's already actually on the books as a law added to the junk vehicle definition.

and that your tabs are current and that your VIN is up to date so that we can help to identify maybe a stolen vehicle or just a vehicle that is not compliant with the current rules.

I guess my concern is adding more criteria in order to say that something is a junk vehicle because we already have a law if it's stolen.

We already have that protect and cover that.

So this adds more, quite frankly for me, more subjective reasons to check off if you only need three to say that it's junk.

Do you see what I'm saying?

It does add more, yes.

Yeah, and so I don't know if it's better left just not having that or because we already know that in criminal law is we already know that we all have laws in place already for criminal activity, criminal behavior.

You don't need a permit.

I mean, that's this is civil.

The criminal side is taken care of and quite frankly, I think the criminal side also takes care of the VIN and the license plate.

I could be wrong.

Well I know I'm right, at least that's how you know it's a stolen vehicle.

I'm just concerned about shifting that over to the civil side and making it one of the criteria if the subjective nature is you only have to have three of the six or three of the eight to determine that's a junk vehicle, if there's any more.

That's just one of my concerns.

Councilmember Strauss might want to weigh in on this, and in conversations with parking enforcement, this was some feedback.

Parking enforcement, that's what I was getting there.

Go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, and the rule, always come to committee, prepare to answer Councilmember Juarez's questions reigns true again today.

True, you are absolutely factual that we are not creating seven or eight.

There are still only six provisions and we are clarifying within those provisions.

For instance, broken window counted the same as windshields previously, but a windshield being broken is much more difficult to drive than a side window.

And we also don't want if somebody just had their car broken into their side window, meaning being broken, that that then becomes a junk vehicle.

To the specific question about the VIN visible and the license plate, as well as the tabs.

So first, this is closing one of the loopholes that we have seen by people on our streets right now when they have a stolen vehicle.

They will remove the license plate and obscure the VIN because to access the VIN, the police department would then need a search warrant to enter the vehicle, to remove whatever is obscuring that VIN.

And so this is where it is important, as well as when we were talking about current license plates, there is a provision that if your tabs are expired beyond 45 days, that it can be towed without notice today.

In some of my questions, I said, well, I've got some photographs that are clearly data marked from over 45 days ago, and it got a little squishy, right?

And then on top of that, if there's not a license plate, you can't have tabs.

And so in the conversation of, for the, you know, if they don't have tabs, how can you determine, or if they don't have a plate, how can you determine if they're tabs?

That's why we added license plate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Juarez, all set?

Thank you.

I think I'm good for now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Council Member Lin.

I'm actually good.

I'm good.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you.

By the way, I should have noted too, in addition to having the chair of the Land Use Committee and the chair of the Budget Committee, we have transportation covered from a chairmanship perspective too, which puts us in good stead.

You know, reflecting on this, just to quickly state, you know, we talk about public safety, addressing the seam between public safety, public health, housing, and human services, you know, transportation too.

And this is, you know, definitely a seam issue and we need to work through all these different pieces So thank you central staff for your work in support of this and then your collaboration with like CBO and others from the mayor's office.

And I just wanted to close from how we started.

I want to close by noting what Donna from Lehigh said when she says, yeah, there's often a lot of front-end action, but there's not really much back-end action.

And this is what's really needed here.

We need to have the comprehensive approach.

I talk about sustained leadership often with follow-up and follow-through.

This is another area where we need this.

And Steve, I'm going to give you the last word.

Not so many plans, but action.

So we need action on this.

I think we do have a comprehensive approach.

It's going to go through the amendment process, but at the end of the day, action will be taken and then it has to be implemented, which is something that we've seen in public safety often.

But if implemented, we can truly address the situation that we have on our streets, do it with leading with compassion, but then having the wisdom to know that we get it done and then really achieve our, in my case, public safety goals, maybe transportation here and land use there.

but at least the public safety piece is better for our neighbors and our neighborhoods.

So with that, we've reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business?

I suspect not to come before the committee before we adjourn.

I'm seeing none.

Hearing no further business to come before the committee.

We are adjourned.