Land Use Committee 6/4/2025

I'm Mark Solomon, Chair of the Land Use Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Vice Chair Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Chair Solomon.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Okay, great.

If there are no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

I do want to again thank you all for being here today and think to the you know coming to this Thursday afternoon Tuesday Wednesday I'll figure out what day it is meeting of the land use you know and as always I want to give acknowledgement to our central staff to you know the Clerks to SDCI, SDOT, town transit, everyone who has helped us prepare for today's meeting.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up for today?

We have six in person and five remote.

Okay, six in person, five remote, all right.

Let's give everyone two minutes.

We'll start with the in-person speakers first.

And before we read the public comments, we definitely wanna make sure that everyone who took time out of their day to come down here and talk and share their public comments has an opportunity to do so.

So please respect each other, respect each other's time.

as we go forward.

Thank you.

Clerk, can you please read the instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

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

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we will move to remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

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 in the next speaker.

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

That is Leonard Jerome.

And if you can call the next few speakers by name so they can get lined up.

It'll be Leonard Jerome, Sarah Morimoto, Alex Zimmerman, and Alperd Sam Koya.

Okay.

Sarah Kaya, my apologies.

Okay, thank you.

All right, please begin.

Is this on?

Hello.

Yep.

My name is Leonard Harrison Jerome.

I'd like to thank the council for speeding up light rail permitting, and I'm here to speak against Councilmember Rivera's amendment.

There's a crisis of confidence in our democratic leaders in blue cities.

Our citizens ask, why does it take 30 years to build a train from downtown to Ballard?

Why can't our leaders deliver for their constituents?

Why can't blue city governments do anything?

This is a prime example.

The endless stream of needless virtue signaling bureaucracy that only serves to drown important public projects in red tape.

Council member, we've already been consulted, and the people have voted for this project.

It is now your duty as a democratically elected leader to carry out the will of the people, or at the very least, step out of the way.

I'm going to state a fact that many won't want to hear about this project.

There's going to be construction.

No amount of public comment will change that.

What this amendment is, is another tool for rich, well-connected NIMBYs to make sure that this project takes too long or runs over budget or is stopped altogether.

It's time for the rest of this council to lead and to defer to experts.

Strike this amendment and build the dam trains.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sara Morimoto.

Is this, okay.

Good morning or good afternoon council members.

My name is Sarah.

I'm here to speak against council member Rivera's proposal that will slow down light rail development, increase project costs and erode public trust in our city's ability to get things done.

When I take the light rail at rush hour, the trains are so packed, I can't move an inch in any direction.

Seattleites use the light rail.

We rely on it to get to work, to school, to our appointments.

If we delayed process to hear out a few angry individuals, I'm sure that not even a mile of the one line would be built today.

It is a running joke among Seattle millennials that someday our great, great, great grandkids might be able to ride the link to Ballard.

The rest of this bill changes that narrative and cuts red tape thanks to the leadership of the rest of the council.

Please do not include the amendment.

We don't need survey after survey.

We just need to build.

Thank you.

Next up is Alex Zimmerman.

Zeke Heil.

Zeke Heil, my dirty, damn Nazi Gestapo fascist, a pagan bandita, mafia bandita.

My name Alex Zimmerman, I am a Trump supporter.

I speak 5,000 times in council chamber.

I have 6,000 days of trespass, and you prosecute me five times.

I want to speak about agenda number two, about crime and environment, yeah.

I'm totally confused.

When I go to park, for example, this nice environment, you know what it means, so dog can piss in every tree.

Why human cannot do this?

It's pure discriminatory.

Doug have more power than we have.

You know what it means?

It does not surprise me, so we cannot piss in every tree.

It makes people angry.

When people will be angry, crime will go up.

It's very simple.

So I want to explain to you how we can change this.

First, what we need is open better room, and I think in council, Rinks will doing this because you don't have choice yet.

You want talking about people, you need open better room, one day per week from nine to nine, and everybody can go and speak for five minutes.

Guys, you control the 700,000 degenerative ,, cockroaches.

Control hair, and I see this hair, for 20 years, for 20 years, and for last 10 years, it's a nightmare.

It's a pure fascism, but it's got deeper and deeper and deeper.

It's not surprising me, so king country right now, number one fascist county in America.

And last week comes statistics.

So we right now from number one fall into number 10, it's collapse.

When system 10 floor down, it means collapse.

That's it.

You understand what I'm talking to this idiot?

So viva Trump, viva new American revolution.

When people in Seattle, don't stand up, don't change this chamber totally, nothing will be changed.

Next up is Alper, after which will be Kirk and Steve.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Alper Sarakaya, and I'm here to comment on Council Bill 20, sorry, 120975, and specifically on the contents of Council Member Rivera's Amendment 1 as presented last week.

I'm a resident in District 4. I watched the entire meeting last week, and I was pretty disappointed with the characterization that you, Council Member Rivera, had that this amendment was not a big lift.

I've been observing the process of light rail permitting and construction, having grown and lived in Seattle a majority of my life.

I've seen the results of the Seattle process as it's played out in the cities of Bellevue and Mercer Island to curtail transit-oriented development.

Sound Transit has gotten very good at collecting public comment and incorporating it into their designs and construction plans.

If the goal of the council bill is to streamline permitting and to allow for faster construction, Then your amendment, by definition, slows down permitting and construction and adds redundant work to city departments.

It shouldn't matter if public comment comes by way of regional partners or city departments.

The fact that you did not check with city departments before proposing your amendments is poor governance.

The fact that you did not cite clear examples that prompted this amendment is poor governance.

The fact that you introduced this amendment with no public posting of the amendment until several days after the meeting is a sign of poor governance.

The amendment I was written appears to align directly as an anti-pattern to why mass transit takes so long to build in the United States, even according to reports authored by the Federal Transit Administration.

Therefore, I urge you, council member, to withdraw your amendment to prevent further delay of this bill out of committee.

If this content is important to add, then the committee can take it up at a later time as a separate bill where it doesn't jeopardize the passing.

Next, we have Kirk.

Hi, Chair Solomon, members of the council.

I'm Kirk Hoven-Kotter, the executive director of Transportation Choices Coalition.

We are Washington State's nonprofit transit advocate.

We were proud to lead the successful campaign in 2016 that expanded light rail across the region.

One of the only things more popular than light rail expansion in Seattle is getting it done sooner.

We know that everyone on this council wants to see that too.

As currently written, we have concerns with Amendment 1 to Council Bill 120975. Requiring a community outreach plan before permit submission could introduce additional steps that could delay light rail built to West Seattle and Ballard.

We need to get light rail right, but every day we delay means another grinding bus commute in traffic for people on the Route 40, the Route 62, or the C.

But we know that the council members, their staff, Sound Transit, and city staff have been working hard behind the scenes to make sure this code change and amendment doesn't delay light rail.

We're encouraged by the progress, and we're eager to see this amendment come to a resolution that helps us build light rail quickly.

Thank you for your work on it, and thank you for your time.

Next we have Steve.

Trees, low MHA fees, these are symptoms of the big problem.

The big problem is the city, this committee, and even the state, and many states and municipalities accept the big lie.

The big lie is that we can build our way alone out of homelessness.

Well, we have more units than we have homeless people.

Our problem is that we don't match up well with incomes.

And we also haven't done very well in this state on mental health and a few other issues.

I'm so old, I remember when Washington State was a model mental health state.

We have not been that for a very, very long time.

So let us take a look at the real problem.

And that problem is acceptance of the idea that we can make wealthy developers even wealthier, and our problems will go away.

They've only gotten worse.

And I think it's time we start to take a look at other means.

And some of it is in mental health.

Some of it is not over zoning because over zoning takes a maybe a eight or 12 unit apartment house and you raise the taxes, makes it unaffordable.

Then you have to buy.

And you have to have a new one there, which is going to be far more expensive.

And that's why we're seeing fewer lower middle class and working class people able to stay in the city.

Now, I heard a little preaching here about sound transit.

They do so much things so beautifully.

They collect fares.

They know what a safe level of fentanyl is.

You know, their drivers are amazed at that, and some of their passengers are too, because I don't think the health people have figured out .

Next up, we have Mark Wood, Mark Weed.

My apologies.

And after Mark.

After Mark, we'll move to .

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Mark Weed.

and been working with a number of folks in the Soto area over a long period of time.

And I want to talk in favor of streamlining the process that you are in the throes of doing.

And also, I want to speak in favor of the amendment that Councilmember Rivera has put forth.

We are an example of what this process is all about.

And at times, there really isn't a feeling that we as people in the line of the rail are being listened to.

And we would like to see that the city does have an opportunity to be aware of, in quotes, what that outreach is and what the results of that outreach are.

And so all I can say is that there are people out there that do feel like they would like to be heard and heard a little bit more by the city.

Thank you very much.

We will now move into in-person callers.

Sorry, remote callers.

First up, we have Martin Alita.

Martin O' Hi, my name is Martin and I'm here to address Councilmember Revere's amendment proposing additional community outreach for the sound transit through permitting supported by lame duck Councilmember Moore.

Martin O' The amendment was originally presented as a friendly and small addition to the light rail permitting code.

Martin O' It promises to have little or no delays to the project timeline and helps feedback from its community.

Sounds perfect, right?

Although on the surface it sounds peachy, especially after they use phrases like the public has the right to be engaged, it's easy to mistake this amendment for what it really is.

Another veiled attack against the Sound Transit 3 ballot expansion.

Incredibly, these two council members introduced and tried to push through their outreach amendment on what was supposed to be the last day to finalize the vote on the land use code.

Other council members were blindsided and had to read all the changes on the spot, while the community members they claimed to try to engage with had absolutely no opportunity to read or comment.

Worse yet, Rivera and Moore have a history of using disingenuous community outreach programs to try and stall other critical projects that will help shape Seattle.

For example, earlier this year when discussing the One Seattle Housing Initiative from the Office of Planning and Community Development, Moore and Rivera tried to justify their stark opposition to densifying communities by saying that broader and more elaborate process of community outreach were necessary before jumping to any conclusions OneSeattle was proposing.

Ironically, when community outreach was actually done by OneSeattle, the overwhelming majority of respondents wanted densification.

Nearly 60% demanded adding do, try, or fourplex homes, apartments, or condos.

This is just the first of many examples of Rivera and Moore trying to weaponize bureaucracy against the will of Seattleites.

It's clear Riviera and Moore have little interest in the concerns of Seattle's actual people and its communities.

Instead, they are fighting to delay and deter an overwhelmingly supported public transit project more than 70% of the city voted for.

Please don't let Riviera and Moore delay the light rail we all want for even a day longer.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Deb Barker.

Hello.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Chair Solomon and other council members, great to be here.

I am Deb Barker.

I am a private citizen who actually has served on Sound Transit, FT3 as a stakeholder advisory group, the SAG, and FT3 Citizen Advisory Group, the SAG.

I live in West Seattle, and I have been active in learning and working on Sound Transit 3 since well before the pandemic i urge you to support amendment one to council bill 120975 i personally in the times that i served on the committees had uh witnessed sound transit starting uh agreeing to a new alignment uh here in west seattle after the public outreach had concluded i cannot i can testify that sound transits outreach has been miserable and spotty And I can't tell you how many times I called Sound Transit to say you have got to get people out here to tell West Seattle what is going on.

So I believe in public outreach.

I believe in Sound Transit.

And I believe in supporting Amendment 1. I hope you do, too.

I have experience.

And I'm not speaking as somebody who's paid to speak.

Thank you.

next up we have sanders later hello my name is sanders i'm commenting on council bill 120975 please reject amendment one and reject adding red tape to expanding our light rail system The residents of Seattle want the light rail.

We voted on it.

We're paying for it.

Stop delaying system expansion.

This amendment adds additional costs and additional time for sound transit to bring light rail to our neighborhoods.

This amendment is the epitome of the Seattle process.

The Seattle process sucks.

Build the train.

Reject amendment one.

Thank you.

Next up, we have David Haynes.

Ever seen when a lawyer cheats the system and manipulates the law as if they read the criteria the judge will read during a court case?

Also that they can create evidence that guarantees that they can get a slam dunk?

It's kind of like the conflict of interest in the impaired judgment of Maritza Rivera and the other landlords on the land use committee that need to acknowledge that there's a conflict of interest with their self-dealing conflicts of interest that are getting in the way of the 21st century first world quality redevelopment.

What's upsetting is council is trying to force a $7 billion train to go from West Seattle that's nowhere near Alki Beach to go three measly stops to downtown Seattle on a different tunnel.

And it's bad policy, especially when Sound Transit hasn't been able to open up ST2, but all these people have been paying a through ST3 for quite some time now, and they're experts at working the pay plan.

But council wants to, like, continue to delay progress and manipulate the belief that environmental design is the crime prevention especial, when we've seen failure after failure between Pike and Pine Street on Third Avenue where they broke up one bus stop to make three bus stops with a million dollars as if that would quell the crime.

And it just spread it out and dispersed it further.

And quite frankly, counselor and chair who's never been elected by the people, are you really a Seattle police officer of 35 years?

Are you like a crime prevention expert that copycats other bad policies from different cities that seem to run interference for black drug pushers?

and the criminal adults who undermine the youth that you hid behind for 35 years.

You all should acknowledge that there's a conflict of interest every time that there's a land use committee and comprehensive.

Next up, we have Leo Kitchell.

Hello, counsel.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

My name is Leo Kitchell.

I'm a longtime Seattle resident.

I support the effort to streamline permitting, and I'm very concerned by Amendment 1 and asked you to reject it.

Frankly, we're not going to get all of Sound Transit 3. It's too expensive.

And one large reason for this is because we add many hurdles to the process.

I feel that Amendment 1 is a great example of that hurdle.

And when we're dealing with financing billions or tens of billions or hundreds of billions of uh capital projects that time is a large amount of money um i would ask you to yeah please reject this amendment there is already significant significant outreach um and there's also a bit of fairness right uh the communities outside of seattle which are not going to get their sound or their transit projects because we spend too long bickering um have a right to their trains as well we want I want at least a interconnected Puget Sound region.

Please project amendment one.

Let's get these trains built.

Seattle and the surrounding area.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Cameron Frazier.

Cameron?

Oh, sorry.

I was just called in.

So there may need to be a bit of information that the Zoom webinar maybe doesn't work.

Anyways, good afternoon, council members.

My name is Cameron, and I am also here to ask you to vote no on Councilmember Rivera's amendment opposing additional permitting requirements on sound transit.

I'm here asking you this for a very simple reason, which is that voters approved these projects nearly a decade ago, and shovels are still in the ground.

And I say this both to emphasize that we need to get shovels in the ground as soon as possible, but also to invite you to ask, what has sound transit been up to since then?

The answer is that they've been doing designs, and they've been doing studies, and along the way, They've been doing outreach.

They've been doing workshops.

I know because I've been to some.

They've conducted surveys.

I know because I've taken some.

All which is to say that the showing of work that Councilmember Rivera's amendment aims to require has been done already.

It's been done while community consumers could be worked into the ongoing design process rather than potentially requiring court orders and costly delays and returning to the drawing board on shuttle-ready points.

Some of us, in fact, would argue that it's been overdone, and we would submit as Exhibit A in that argument the fact that sound transit has been at this for nearly a day and shovels their scala in the ground.

Endless process and opportunities for delay or veto, a motivated minority of the public, are why this region and this country have so much trouble building major infrastructure.

Councilmember Rivera's amendment would double down on that culture rather than focusing on delivering this necessary and transformational project with the urgency it demands.

It would add new risks of costly project delays in a bill explicitly designed to remove them, and it would be so by creating extraordinary requirements not seen elsewhere in the permitting code.

So for those reasons I'm asking you to please vote no, thank you.

We have one last in-person commenter.

That is Aidan Erskine.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Aiden.

I just wanted to add a couple of quick comments regarding Councilmember Rivera's amendment regarding Sound Transit.

I'm deeply invested in the health of Sound Transit Rail, so I can more easily visit and travel around Seattle because I don't like stressful traffic, and I don't like paying for really expensive parking, but I love visiting Seattle, and I love this city.

I understand Rivera's view in pushing the amendment, but the fact of the matter is we do not need public outreach because we have already gotten the public outreach.

Voters have already approved the light rail multiple times.

Also, the Sound Transit Board is elected, and if any individual reticents do not like things that the board is doing, they can go through the normal democratic process and vote for someone else.

And yeah, we do not need any more community outreach.

It will only add more red tape, and Sanchez has already struggled with this for years.

We do not need any more of it.

It's almost like an open joke about how long transit projects take to get constructed.

And yeah, we do not need more of it for literally no reason.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Thank you.

Chair, there are no additional registered speakers.

Okay.

Thank you very much everyone for your commentary.

It is appreciated and it is heard.

As there are no additional registered speakers, we'll now proceed to our items of business.

So will the clerk please read item one into the record.

Agenda item one, council bill 120975, in ordinance relating to land use and zoning, addressing signage, clarifying requirements and supporting efficient permitting processes for light rail transit facilities.

Thank you.

As a reminder, this legislation updates the city's codes to support efficient permitting processes for the construction of light rail transit facilities and would help fulfill the permit process improvement goals identified by the city and by sound transit in 2019. By passing this ordinance, The amended code would support timely construction of the West Seattle Light Link Extension and the Ballard Link Extension projects.

Representatives from SDCI, SDOT, and Council Central Staff are available to answer any questions Council may have.

And thank you staff for joining us.

And as you have already joined us at the table, please, for the record, please introduce yourselves.

Keto Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Sarah Maxana, Office of the Waterfront Civic Projects and Sound Transit.

Lindsay King, SDCI.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And we've had...

three presentations from you all.

So, uh, we've gotten a lot of information from you and thank you very much for that.

Uh, and with that, um, do any of the committee members have any questions or comments for, um, the, uh, staff members present?

Okay.

Well, let me move.

Do you have a question?

Move the bill.

Yes.

Chair, and then we'll do the amendments and then we have questions.

We can do the questions.

Yes.

Okay, cool.

All right, so I now move that the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120975. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded for the passage of the bills.

Are there any comments?

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 120975 with Amendment 1, Version 3.

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented in Amendment 1, Version 3. Council Member Rivera, you are recognized to speak on the proposed amendment.

Chair, can we have our central staff, would it be okay if central staff explains the amendment and then I'm happy to speak to it?

Certainly.

Amendment 1, version 3. This is a somewhat different version of the amendment that was discussed last week.

This amendment would require that Sound Transit submit a community outreach report that summarizes public outreach and commented permit application and also authorizes the director of the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections to require additional outreach as a discretionary decision.

A little bit different from the amendment that the council considered last week, that amendment had a pre-application component as well as a review component after application.

This is just an application that would apply at the time of permit application by sound transit for light rail transit facilities.

Just so the committee is aware of this, but for the public out there, there are a couple of potential amendments to the amendment that will be talked about here in a minute.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ketel for reviewing that.

I wanna say that last week, well, Chair, first of all, thank you for giving us a few more days to go through this amendment.

It has been my position and continues to be that this is an opportunity for Sound Transit to show their work to the city and show us the public outreach that they were doing.

It was never intended to cause any delays or costs.

And so I want to thank the mayor's office, the Sound Transit 3 team, and SDCI for working with me since Friday to try to come up with language to get to the intent, to my intent, and language that they felt comfortable with.

The language that you see that was the language that folks had most concern about or that seemed that would be perhaps folks were thinking it might add delay is the language that the mayor's office with the departments proffered and that you see as Section B here.

So again, I want to thank them for helping create language to get to the intent, which is to really make sure that as Sound Transit is applying for these permits, that they are showing their work.

They're already doing, as I said last week, they are already doing outreach.

They have already documented the outreach.

The only thing is they are not required to share the outreach with the department, and this really would be requiring them to share their work and share their outreach results with the department.

So that is what you see here before you.

I don't know if the team wants to add anything else, but that's pretty much it.

We work together to come up with language to show that.

so that we were ensured that the city would have that information without creating any additional burden or delay or costs, especially given since I have said, and I continue to say, I'm very supportive of light rail.

I ride light rail.

I'm really lucky to have a station near where I live, um, and I'm someone who didn't have a driver's license till I was 30. And so I, I am a big proponent of public transit, um, in general.

So thank you.

Thank you, chair.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, are there any comments on amendment one?

Council member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

I would just like to clarify, because we've heard a lot of talking points, but I think we're actually directed to the amendment that came before this committee before.

And if we could just, I know Ketel, you went through this, but if you could just maybe highlight how this amendment is quite significantly different from what was proposed by Councilmember Rivera, such as it no longer requires private prior approval application.

Yeah, so there were three components to the amendment that was discussed last week.

One was a pre-application outreach requirement.

So Sound Transit would have had to submit a community outreach plan that would have been reviewed and approved by SDCI prior to permit application.

So that's an analogous situation, might be a full design review project in the city.

And then that outreach plan would be sort of the outcome of that outreach plan would be a component of the permit application to the city.

So once the initial outreach is done, consistent with the plan, they would include information from that outreach in the application itself.

And then finally, the SDCI director would have been required to identify in the permit decision for a light rail transit facility, how the decision responded to that public comment if that public comment was applicable to the decision-making by the SDCI director.

So those components are no longer part of the amendment.

The amendment would just require a report at application by Sound Transit on the outreach that they had undertaken prior to permit application.

Okay, thank you.

That's very helpful.

And do you have any additional information about the number?

Again, this is no longer having to do it sort of pre-approval, but I'm just curious about the total number of permits that we are talking about.

Yeah, I'll ask maybe Lindsay to speak to that.

I think that, you know, the overall implication of this legislation is that Sound Transit could choose to bundle permits, right?

So there is some discretion that Sound Transit would have about how they would bundle permits for different alignments for different for different segments of an alignment in the city right so there's not There's an estimate from SDCI about how many applications there may be from Sound Transit, but ultimately there is some discretion by the applicant and how they choose to bundle things.

So I'll turn it over to Lindsay here.

Thank you for asking, Council Member Moore.

At this point, we anticipate nearly 59 master use permits for the West Seattle Link Extension.

We will be moving into the permit packaging discussions with Sound Transit, but the packaging is largely dependent on the type of review that would be required the site specific conditions and the complexity of review.

So we will be analyzing that as we start to package the permits together in order to make the permits that can move efficiently as fast as possible.

And those that take a little bit more time, hold those on their own.

There will never be a situation where there's one permit per segment.

There will always be significantly more permits, but potentially less than 59.

And is that sort of a process you're going through now

It's a process that we'll be doing in the coming weeks, yeah.

We've done it at a high level for some of the Soto area, but not for the master use permits yet.

We've discussed grading permits there.

Yes.

Thank you and I have additional question because I know in this language that was arrived at and actually my understanding was suggested by the executive departments in consultation with SDOT that one of the things that has been changed is it says COR shall include a list of impacted stakeholders previously targeted for public outreach.

So can you just maybe explain what that means previously targeted?

Sure.

Sound Transit does engagement in advance of permitting, as everyone has discussed here, that we understand that Sound Transit does this engagement.

So the goal of identifying the impacted stakeholders in advance of permitting is to document the engagement location, the people that they targeted for engagement, and then to provide a summary of that to then inform the permitting that we would render a decision on.

So the big thing here is that once a permit comes in the door, we are in a regulatory process at that point in time.

We are doing public notice.

We are doing potentially public meetings.

What this does is it creates somewhat of a bright line between what Sound Transit's responsible for documenting, which is the engagement in advance of permitting, and then what would be SDCI's responsibility during the permitting process as a part of the public record to solicit public comments and then render a decision based on those comments.

What's unique about this is that we will be able to be informed both by the comments that were accepted by Sound Transit in advance of permitting, as well as the comments that we get during permitting, which is unique.

Okay.

So we actually being able to get broaden the amount of comment that's going to be provided.

Okay.

That's, that's helpful.

Um, thank you.

I don't have any other questions about this.

I know there are two other amendments.

I'm not quite sure how we want to proceed with those to this amendment.

I have a plan.

Okay.

Uh, I see council member Rink, you have your hand raised.

Thank you, chair.

I moved to amend the amendment as presented on the recently distributed amendment one B.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the amendment presented on Amendment 1B.

Council Member Rink, you are recognized to address this.

Thank you, Chair Solomon.

I'll first pass it to Kittle to provide an overview before I go into my comments and questions.

Sure.

So this is an amendment to amendment language proposed by Council Member Rivera.

It modifies that language slightly by striking language that would give to the SDCI director the authority to require additional outreach as a part of perfect review.

Thank you, Keitel.

Colleagues, this amendment is meant to align the understood intent of the underlying amendment, but with reduced legal risk and by removing the delays and increased cost the underlying amendment could create.

Giving the SDCI director this type of discretion to delay permit processes endlessly is not something we see in any other type of permitting process.

We should not apply an arbitrary standard to a project voters approved overwhelmingly being brought to us by a public agency while applying a less strict standard to every other permit in the city, including those by private developers.

We need to be aligned in this process.

And so with that said, I have a couple of questions for Director Maxena.

Can the SDCI director require repeated COR reports?

Under this language, and I wanna, if I could preface this by saying, first I wanna echo the thank you to the chair for the opportunity to work through this in the last week, the thank you to Council Member Rivera for the just tremendous collaboration that happened over the last week.

to propose this language, I will note that that particular sentence is language that we suggested as a way to bridge, I think, the very real intention of making sure that our permitting process is informed by the engagement that Sound Transit has done, as well as the engagement that the city is required to do as part of that regulatory process, and trying to make sure that we're not introducing undue risk or delay or uncertainty.

Our read of this language is that the community outreach report would be issued at, or would be included as part of the permit application materials.

So then I'm gonna defer to, I'm gonna answer the question, but defer to Lindsay, who's far and away more of the subject matter expert on this than I am, that this would be something that we're creating that would, Sound Transit, as Council Member Rivera said, does this engagement already.

And so it would be a packaging of that engagement and it would be including that engagement in the application materials.

This sentence, as opposed to the previous iteration of the amendment language from last week, just allows the discretion that if there were an instance where we didn't feel that engagement was sufficient or where there was an interest in having an additional engagement, it allows the discretion for the department director to ask for additional engagement on the part of sound transit.

I will ask Lindsey to respond to My understanding is that while this language doesn't exist today, the department director does have the discretion to add engagement that the city does as part of our regulatory process.

So we do have the discretion to do that.

This would just make explicit the discretion to request Sound Transit to do additional engagement.

Thank you.

So the language that's written would require one report to be submitted at the time of permitting to inform the permit review.

What would then happen is, as a part of our review in the permit process, and in reviewing the report as a part of our review, if we found that we would like additional engagement for one reason or another, contacted by an applicant, a community member maybe that felt that additional engagement was necessary, then we would have the ability to potentially go back out to community.

I think what's unique about this is that we would first go out there as a public agency, I think, with Sound Transit.

if we could.

So I don't know that there is a situation where we would ask Sound Transit to go out independently without the city during the time of permitting.

I think it would be something that would have to be done collaboratively because we're in a permit process.

So I think what this line would do in practical application is require Sound Transit to come with us to an engagement opportunity.

Is that not what you're...

I see him shaking.

Well, it says may.

Sorry, Chair, may I address the...

Did you finish your comments?

I have a few more questions and comments.

Okay.

If we could let her, you know, let Council Member Rink finish the questions, then we'll come back and recognize you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So just for the purposes of clarification, are there any guardrails to stop a director from holding these COR reports or holding projects in a state of suspense by repeatedly requiring new CORs?

We are not requiring a new COR if we're requesting additional engagement.

The engagement that we would be going out to do would be to solicit comments and receive comments real time as a part of that engagement.

And so is this type of discretion granted to any other department head on any other permitting process?

Essentially, has this been done before?

No.

And what are the unknowns when it comes to this final sentence in the underlying bill, or the underlying amendment, pardon me, from a departmental point of view?

when and how we would apply that sentence.

Okay, great.

Thank you, colleagues.

I'm gonna get a little wonky.

Sound Transit has told my office directly that once they've reached the 60% design threshold, they would submit the permit application along with the COR.

After they submit, they continue to develop the design and could even get to 80% by the time the director could give them the news that they need to 60% design to do an additional COR.

And there's nothing holding the director back from asking for a COR on a COR in an endless cycle.

But it sounds like perhaps that's not the case, so I'd like to be able to find ways to remedy that.

But we know that from Seattle Extensions alone, and as was stated earlier, a minimum of 59 master use permits along with 200 plus other individual permits are here.

And so colleagues, this is a little bit of the rationale for my amendment, being able to strike this last sentence here and the underlying amendment to create, to try and minimize some of these questions and unknowns that could arise by including this kind of language and what sounds like a new element.

And I'm asking for your support.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to clarify.

This language, first of all, this entire paragraph with that sentence was proffered by the executive and the department themselves, and it was vetted by law, so there is no increased legal risk there.

The director may require, it doesn't say it requires, so this is just really giving flexibility to the director And as Lindsay said, if they are working with Sound Transit and they, you know, they get this report, community outreach report, and it is determined that perhaps something additional is needed, then that gives the director and the mayor's office, for that matter, the flexibility to work with Sound Transit to get additional, perhaps do additional outreach somewhere.

I have never heard that the SDCI director or the mayor's office is doing anything additional based on one constituents' requests, this would be something that they would identify, and you all correct me if I'm wrong, but my experience with the departments is if something goes not as planned in the context of this work, then it gives the opportunity to say, hey, we're gonna do some additional outreach for this part of the thing we didn't anticipate.

But again, it is not a requirement to do so.

It is just merely a flexible, a point of flexibility.

Um, and so that is really important to this because it is really just to allow that flexibility.

And while I understand that the external agency might not care for this particular additional flexibility, we also need to preserve for our city, um, and our departments and our constituents, the flexibility so that on the back end, if something goes wrong, we are not in a situation where someone's trying to sue us because we didn't do our due diligence.

I think that this was prudent that it was actually proffered by the mayor and the department.

And I appreciate the flexibility and that may require language versus an actual requirement.

And I will say that again, I appreciated the departments and the mayor's office partnership with this to make sure we weren't creating undue delays while at the same time making sure we had information.

that was important to this work as the director and the department are reviewing the permits, similar to, as Lindsey said earlier, they do, or maybe it was you, Sarah, in the design review process.

So while it might be unique to this situation, it's not unique to the city in general in terms of a design review process for other projects.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other commentary?

Any other thoughts?

All right.

So I know that there's another amendment, but I feel that we need to move on this one before we move to the next one.

So will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1B.

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Moore?

No.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Chair Salmon?

Yes.

Chair, there are three votes in favor and two opposed.

All right, thank you very much.

And I just wanna say that when I look at the underlying bill, my thing is, are we Are we doing what the bill intends to do, which is make it easier, streamline the permitting process and get things going?

We've had delays and we need to move the process forward.

So that's my underlying thinking as we go through this.

So I know that we do have Another amendment.

So, oh, I should say yes, the recommendation to amend the bill with Amendment B does pass.

1B.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay, cool.

Now, can we also, Clerk, can you read?

As mentioned, we do have another amendment.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Amendment 1, Version 3, Section 31B with Amendment 1C.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Councilman Moore, do you want central staff to, or our panel to discuss before you address the bill?

Yes, please.

Okay.

All right, so Amendment 1C, which is an amendment to Amendment 1 as amended by Amendment 1B, would restore some language that was discussed last week and was in prior iterations of the community outreach report.

amendment specifically would add a requirement to the community outreach report, include project information that was shared during outreach.

So information about the project itself.

Here's what the language would look like.

The new language is in purple.

And of course, the final sentence was eliminated by prior Amendment 1B to Amendment 1.

Okay.

Council Member Moore, you are recognized.

Thank you.

So, as I said, this was in the original amendment brought by Council Member Rivera, and I'm just seeking to reinstate it.

As noted, since we're not requiring prior approval, this is simply going to be providing, the COP will require them to include what was the information that they provided.

I just think in order for there to be fulsome review that we ought to know what was the information that was provided and also since there's going to be a summary of public comment, it's helpful to know what are people commenting, what are they responding to in that.

So I consider it to be a friendly amendment and a simple amendment that isn't going to add an undue delay or cost.

So I would ask for your support.

I do have one technical question though, because since Councilmember Rivera's, excuse me, Councilmember Rink's amendment passed, striking the language about the director may require additional outreach.

That is in here and I'm not quite sure how that works.

Yeah, the record is pretty clear.

So that this last sentence is no longer is, the committee action struck that final sentence.

So if this amendment were to pass, this subsection B would be everything that you see up to that final sentence.

So I could just read it out loud perhaps for the sake of the record.

So this amendment would amend subsection B of section 2380.002 to read as follows.

For light rail transit facility applications that include light rail stations, maintenance bases, and temporary uses for light rail transit facility construction, the applicant shall submit a community outreach report, COR.

The COR shall include a list of impacted stakeholders previously targeted for public outreach in advance of permitting, methods of communication, including print, digital, and in-person, purposes and objectives for the outreach, project information shared during the outreach, and a summary of public comment, and it would stop there.

Thank you for that.

Any comments or questions from members of the committee?

Council member Rivera.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, council member, um, uh, more for bringing this forward and, um, including this from the, uh, the past, um, amendment that I brought.

I also want to say, I did check in with the mayor's office, um, uh, and the, the department to make sure that they, you know, were okay with the, this particular sentence since it was, uh, from the last amendment and they were fine with it.

So I think it makes a lot of sense to make sure that we have project information that was being shared as part of this outreach.

And again, Sound Transit already has this.

So having them give it to us, I don't think will incur any delays or costs or is a heavy lift for the agency.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

And to the committee table or to the sponsor of the amendment, I can read the words on this page.

I grew up in Ballard, but I did learn to read.

Project information shared during project outreach.

What does that mean?

And I ask that not rhetorically.

And I mean, I'm happy for anyone to answer.

And I say that to what does that mean?

Are we going back to 20...

for the ST3 outreach?

Are we going back to the meeting at Ballard High School where Council Member Bagshaw and Council Member O'Brien showed up to Sound Transit and told them that they weren't building a Baskill Bridge.

In fact, we were doing a tunnel to Sound Transit's chagrin.

What is the scope of this?

Frankly, how many pieces of paper are we gonna print?

Are we miniaturizing some of this outreach?

I'm a little stunned.

Our interpretation, is that a question to me?

I'm happy to have anyone answer, yes.

Our interpretation is that the whole intent here is really focused on the engagement that is informing the permit activity.

So it's not meant to go all the way back to when ST3 was first being developed in 2014 and in advance of the vote.

but is really focused on all of the engagement that's happening between environmental review, which is a pretty robust engagement process, and then final design and getting everything to a permit submittal.

So our interpretation of the language as proposed in the amendment is that it would then tie a little bit more project information to the engagement report so that it's clear what engagement was about the station designs or what engagement was about the guideway designs or what engagement was about the affected landowners or property owners.

So it would just give, because there's so many, as you know, as a board member, there's so many different places where Sound Transit engages on so many different issues related to the system.

And so this would just, require Sound Transit in that report to tie the engagement activity to what the engagement was about.

Was it about the environmentally critical areas or tree loss near the Delridge station?

Or was it about impacted property owners in Soto?

So really, that's my interpretation of it, but I would invite, I guess I would put the question out to others to make sure that that's the shared interpretation.

And I know that we had Sound Transit II and Sound Move built through the city of Seattle.

was this not, I mean, this information was clearly collected for those permits.

Was there an issue getting this information from Sound Transit?

What problem is this looking to solve?

And maybe you can answer the first question of what.

Colleagues, the reason that you're seeing me getting a little exercised over here is I have spent hours and hours trying to understand the benefits and potential unintended consequences of Councilmember Rivera's amendment.

And I've just only had, again, 30 minutes to try to digest what, and yes, it's one, two, three, four, five, six words, but six words can create a lot of work, a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of red tape.

And so I'm just trying to fully understand before I vote on this, what are we implying?

And so back to the question of, was this a problem getting this information from Sound Transit during sound move in the ST2?

Not having been here directly for sound move and ST2 permitting, I will say at a high level, the whole intent of our code amendment legislation is to do better than we did in sound move and ST2 because we recognize that the project is so much more complicated and we want to be able to deliver it quickly.

The community outreach report language that's here, just to go back to our departments worked very collaboratively and are supportive of the language that's drafted, we don't see this additional six words as adding anything untoward or anything that would add undue delay or complexity that wouldn't already be part of what Sound Transit is doing.

That is our interpretation of it, council member.

And maybe I would look if there's anything to add from your perspective.

No.

These six words are not going to add additional delay.

Or is there risk in these six words creating additional delay?

We believe that Sound Transit is collecting this information already as part of the quarterly updates that they provide to the board, the engagement activity that they're doing.

Our interpretation of the language, we saw the language and talked about our position on the language.

This isn't a formal executive position on it, because it is language that just got added back in.

But in good faith, just to say at the table here, our interpretation of this language is that it doesn't do harm and that it's OK.

We haven't had the time to go back to Sound Transit and ask them, but our interpretation is that this is language that we can move forward with.

Just to clarify that, we as the city of Seattle have not engaged with Sound Transit on these six words.

I have not directly engaged with them on these six words.

Thank you.

That is a problem for me.

Thank you.

Council Member Moore.

Yeah, thank you.

You know, I think it's a fair question.

And again, the intent from the sponsor is just because this was within the original language from Councilmember Rivera, which when we were talking about prior to permit application, submitting a comp plan, and the comp plan required a list of who was going to be impacted, the methods of communication, the purpose and objectives for that outreach, and the project information anticipated to be shared during the outreach.

So clearly it was the information was tied to your outreaching about what's going to happen.

and we want that information to be, we want to know what is that information that you're providing to them that this is coming.

So that is, so it's a little tricky when you are pulling it and putting into a new provision, but that is clearly what the intent, certainly my intent as sponsor of this amendment is just to reinstate that.

Tell us what you told them.

as part of the plan that you're presenting of showing us who you outreach to, what was the purpose of that outreach, what did you tell them, and what did they say.

So I don't know, Council Member Strauss, if that resolves any of your concerns, but that's certainly the intent of what this is.

Thank you.

Just to answer directly, Council Member Moore, if I had time to speak to Sound Transit, that would help resolve the concerns.

You make a good point.

You make a good case.

My problem is that the process of governing is hindered without my ability to check in with the agency and in which I also sit on as a board member.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I will recognize Council Member Rivera.

thank you um chair um thank you council member moore for explaining that um it is consistent with my original when i intended when i original originally added these six words as you say in here it was what did you tell the people when you did the outreach it was as simple as that and i also want to say i have an outreach summary from Sound Transit.

As I said last time, we had a really great conversation.

I got a briefing.

Colleagues, I don't think you have this.

And this is part of my point, too.

It's really nice to see the outreach that the agencies do when they're doing these projects.

And in here, they very clearly have timelines for the outreach, who they did the outreach to, how many outreach events, in-person open houses, emails they sent, ads, fares they went, you know, et cetera, et cetera, with a community engagement schedule, and then some preliminary stuff for Ballard Link even.

So this is not, I mean, I don't know how many pages this is.

It's under 20 pages to me.

Yes, it's exact.

It's 18 pages or 19. It's not onerous.

So I do feel like this is somehow being portrayed a little bit more.

Just I understand people's frustrations and I agree process should not hinder the things that we want to do.

Again, when I came to the city 25 years ago, I was shocked to see there wasn't a transit a light rail system, a train system, because that's what I grew up with.

And so we want to make sure that these projects are moving forward.

At the same time, we want to make sure that people know what is happening.

And so it may seem sophomoreish to everyone that I'm asking for this, but It's really not intended to be a pause, a delay, or obstruction.

It's really meant to be.

I have heard from folks that we do projects, not just this project, many different projects, and people are constantly saying, we didn't know about that project.

And I know it's hard to do outreach.

I started my career 30 years ago in outreach.

No matter, you know, you find all the different ways.

There'll be always someone who says they didn't know.

But the more things that you can show them, the more that they can see, I don't know how you missed it.

Like, we did it.

And they are doing it.

So I said it before, I've said it about five times today.

I'll say it one last time.

Sound Transit is doing the outreach.

This is an opportunity for them to show their work to us.

I shouldn't have had to ask for a briefing to see the work.

If they're sharing it with our city department, then I have it too, and you all have it if you want it at this level.

So that's all this is.

And so while I appreciate everyone is concerned and I understand where the concern is coming from, I can assure you that my intent, what was in my brain, was not to at all delay, have even this long of a conversation about something that was so innocuously proffered at the last meeting, but that I think is important so that we show our work to our constituents.

And again, I want to thank the department and the mayor's office for engaging with me and understanding the intent behind this and really putting some language together that we could all be okay with that really doesn't delay anything so that we, you know, we can address the constituents' concerns around outreach that we're constantly hearing, and at the same time, we're continuing to move with this amazing project.

I want to see my neighbors in West Seattle and Ballard have the same access to light rail that I have in my neighborhood and that my kids and I ride constantly.

so um all i can say is that's where it was coming from what is being asked is just tell us what you told them as part of the the the director's review of all of this this is just one additional thing maybe it wasn't proffered in the past maybe nobody thought to include it or ask for it But I thought about it because I do have 30 years of outreach under my belt, and I thought it was important for constituents to know, and more importantly, the director and the department who's actually proffering these permits.

And in the spirit of partnership, sometimes somebody can say, hey, here's an additional way you could do outreach, an additional something.

um, uh, that can be proffered in partnership, not as a obstruction that would be helpful to, to really, um, continue to build support for this thing.

So thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council member Rivera.

Council member rank.

Thank you, Chair.

I believe we're still in discussion of Amendment 1C, correct?

Correct.

Correct.

I'd like to ask the amendment sponsor if she would consider perhaps bringing this to full council.

We're supportive in concept.

I just I would like our office to have that information and a discussion with Sound Transit just before being able to vote on this.

Without that, I would need to abstain on the amendment for today.

Council Member Moore.

I'm happy to wait till full Council.

That'll give us a chance to talk to Sound Transit.

And also, I could clarify that the information shared during the outreach should be as documented.

So it would be project information shared during the outreach documented in the community outreach report.

So we're setting some guardrails and parameters.

So yes, I'm happy to wait.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Council Member Wink.

Thank you, Council Member Moore for your agreement to hold this until next council.

So with that, I am going to, as the clerk, to please call the roll on the recommendation of Council Bill.

The point of order, I don't believe that we're, are we at a point of voting on the underlying amendment?

I thought we were just pulling C at this point.

We are pulling C at this point.

Okay.

Sorry.

before we vote, I have some comments on the underlying amendment.

Okay.

Uh, actually that's where we're, thank you for that.

Um, so discussions on the amendment as amended.

Thank you.

Uh, may I chair?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, I, I take in full faith the sponsors statements and I believe your intentions are not to to create harm, to create delay, to create churn, to create tension.

Overall, this conversation does, you know, there's light rail in District 4, there's light rail in District 5, there's not in District 1 and 6. It feels like the haves telling the have-nots how to do their business.

That's what this feels like to me today.

I want to bring us back and bring us to a regional level.

Sound Transit's budget, as was shared, I believe it was just last week, is not sustainable in the 2040s without substantive changes made and efficiencies found in operations and in construction.

There was not, the word realignment was intentionally not used.

We're going through an enterprise exercise, but I can tell you that the alarm bells are ringing and they are ringing loud.

This might not have hit Seattle City Council's chambers yet.

This is, I believe, the third time I've said it in a week.

And still, the full implications of the budget being out of balance in the 2040s is bigger than any of us realize.

We've already had board members discussing minimum operating segments as a way to solve for this.

What does that functionally mean for the city of Seattle?

That means the West Seattle extension would make it to Delridge.

It means the Ballard segment would make it to Smith Cove.

When I heard this stated at the boardroom, I got a little hot and I said, if we're going to do that, then you have to change the name from the Ballard segment to the Smith Cove segment.

We, as the City of Seattle, must do all we can to streamline costs and processes because Sound Transit is doing the same and because West Seattle's already double the cost of original estimations.

And we don't have final numbers for Ballard, but I can only imagine it to be the same, which is why we must, as the City of Seattle, do all we can to streamline costs and processes.

The largest cost driver is delay.

While Link Light Rail has already reached D4 and D5, trains arriving in Ballard and West Seattle are not guaranteed.

As I said, this amendment feels like the haves telling the have-nots how to do their business.

That might not be the case and it's not your intention, I know that to be true, but intentions and feelings are not facts.

Nothing precludes council members from engaging sound transit on receiving the summary that council member Rivera showed.

I do believe it is council members duties to engage.

And if you're not receiving the information that you want, it's important to let Board members and the mayor know.

I can tell you over the last year and a half, I have had my struggles receiving information from Sound Transit to the point that I abstained on a vote from them for some basic information.

I believe that the agency is course corrected and I've seen more information shared and I've heard CEO Constantine use the words radical transparency more times in the last two or three weeks than I've got fingers and toes.

What colleagues may also not remember was the elected leaders group of 2018 and 2019, which determined the preferred alternatives for both West Seattle and Ballard.

Council members Johnson, Bagshaw, O'Brien, Gonzalez, Herbold, and Harrell, as well as Mayor Durkin were brought in to work with regional partners.

This was a specific group of intense collaboration and outreach.

You may or may not remember old Bellevue.

You might not because council member Balducci has improved Bellevue's reputation as far as transit goes in a way that I don't think anyone else has in years because there was a time that Bellevue was resistant to receiving light rail.

Their city council added costs delay and made planning more difficult.

The underlying bill here sets us on a different path than old Bellevue by streamlining processes, saving costs and time.

but I worry that this amendment sets this work back.

I don't want our city to be like Old Bellevue.

We have the opportunity to be a regional leader and show other municipalities who don't yet have light rail how to speed delivery to seen in the region as hindering a streamlined process.

Because such behavior shows regional partners, whether intentional or not, whether true or just a feeling, that Seattle isn't doing everything possible to help solve the big problems before the region and the agency.

Because if we're not seen partnering to solve the big problems, they may say, we should finish the spine before expanding within Seattle.

We only just reached Snohomish County last August.

And West Seattle and Ballard are in planning stages that are ahead of reaching Everett.

The original promise of Link Light Rail was to connect the spine.

We, again, still haven't reached Pierce County at all.

I'll remind the body that Sound Transit is a regional entity.

Seattle has two of 18 votes.

We need to be seen as a partner because the sound transit budget is not home to 2040s.

Seattle projects are planned to be completed before we finish the spine and critical votes have not yet been taken.

And we, as the city can be outvoted.

I'm concerned that this amendment indicates to the region that we are acting like the old Bellevue, even though I don't believe that's the sponsor's intention.

And it is incredibly important for us to do everything that we can to help streamline this process and get these trains built.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

Okay, I see we have some more comments and I'm mindful of time, yet I do not want to cut off any of my council members from having the opportunity to express themselves.

So not sure if it was Council Member Moore or Council Member Rink, who had your hand up first, Council Member Moore.

Rink had it first.

I'm sorry?

Rink.

Council Member Rink, I'm sorry.

Thank you, chair.

Um, the confusion and last minute nature of these changes from last week's committee is what has brought us here today.

My concerns were confirmed affirmed in that this amendment, the amendment that was presented last week and discussed here in committee would add months of delay and increased cost.

And since then my office has received over 750 emails in opposition to this amendment.

And there has been a lot of concern by our constituents due to lack of transparency and the accessibility of the amendment.

It wasn't published publicly until the week after it was first considered.

And while many of my concerns have been mitigated in the underlying amendment as a whole, and I thank the amendment sponsor for her receptivity to feedback and for the committee's approval of my amendment for today.

I still believe that this underlying amendment brings us back and does not move us forward.

Thank you.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanna say to thank you council member Rivera for your willingness to go back and work with SDCI and sound transit mayor's office to address many of the concerns that were raised.

I think it's really important not to fall into this sort of classes trope that if you disagree with something it's we're pitting one community against another.

We are all seeking to get transit for all of our residents.

And no matter where you live in the city, there are vulnerable populations.

And this is not about NIMBYism.

And it's going to be spun that way.

And just the public comments that came were personal attacks, the more Rivera, double-punch kind of nonsense, personal attacks.

It's just more hate because people don't agree with the particular positions that we're taking.

And this attempt to make it sound like we don't give a flying F about anybody that you disagree with is nonsense, and it's insulting.

I've spent my entire life in public service.

I started as a public defender.

I ate peanut butter sandwiches because I didn't make enough money.

I lived with three other people.

As a professional, I have spent my entire life working to better others.

And I just cannot begin to tell you how tired I am of this narrative.

So yeah, I support a little bit more process because they're already engaged in the process.

There's nothing here that we're asking them to do that they are not already doing.

We're just asking them to show us their work, partly to cover our own backside because as we saw with the comp plan, we had a lot of people complain that they weren't outreached to and a lot of disagreement about whether that outreach happened or not.

And we need to be able to show that we did it.

And it looks like Sound Transit is actually doing a really good job.

based on what they've presented to Councilmember Rivera.

Like, I think they're making progress.

They're doing much better.

So we're just asking you to show us your work.

It is a simple attachment to the application.

There's been a lot of discussion about it's going to create immense delay, immense cost.

There's not been a single person who's actually presented a fact Those are all assertions.

Where are the facts?

We've got 59 permits and many of them are going to be bundled.

Where are the actual facts of cost and delay?

I do not see them.

And the other point is that the executive has drafted this language.

They view it as being something that will work and that will not continue, that will not create unnecessary delay.

And any problems that occurred with ST3 are long in the making.

They are not tied to this very simple transparency amendment, and we are all about transparency.

And now we've taken out the piece about requiring, allowing the director to have additional discretion.

Fair enough.

I think that's a good change, even though I vote against it.

It's still a good change.

It also, again, removes that ability for this narrative that this will somehow create additional delay.

We have got to be able to have thoughtful, fact-based conversations and disagreement.

We have got to move away from these ideological, hard, talking points that prohibit us from making progress in this city.

And this is just the small, small example of the bigger problems that we are facing in the city and trying to move things forward and work together collaboratively.

And I understand concerns about the process.

And again, it was all done late, but everybody had an opportunity to review it.

We've had full and fulsome debate up here.

I've agreed to pull mine so we can have additional fulsome debate.

So I just need to get that off my chest because no matter what I say, it's gonna be spun that I hate transit, I hate poor people, I'm all about just nimbyism and that the facts show that that is not the case.

and feel free to come and talk to me about how I've dedicated 30 plus years to the public service and improving the lives of people who don't have a voice and have chosen to put myself out here for all this love that I get every day.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Colleagues, the emails that we all got were based on version one.

We're on version three.

This is so much different than the original version, and it's better because we worked together.

There was nothing nefarious about bringing Amendment 1. Again, I've explained multiple times what I was trying to accomplish, and I have to say, I said last week, and I continue to be in disbelief about what this very minor amendment was trying to accomplish.

I think there is something underlying political at play here that I inadvertently stepped into, but from a policy standpoint, there is nothing in this amendment that is egregious.

You have heard multiple times, not just from Councilmember Moore and I, but from the mayor's office, the ST3 team, the SCCI, that this is not going to cause delay or costs because this was changed to accomplish what I had originally in mind.

And so it will accomplish that us getting the work from Sound Transit, them showing their work as we have to permit this.

This is our responsibility.

And to Councilmember Moore's point today and the same points we both made last week, we are covering our backs by having make sure that we have insight into that outreach.

And so again, No delays.

We've heard multiple times.

No cost.

So at this point, any reticence to vote for this is strictly political and not policy.

And that is fine.

That's people's prerogative.

But I do not want it to be left unsaid.

that this is somehow creating a delay or cost or some obstruction to some longstanding thing that is happening with ST3.

It's whatever is happening is not based on this amendment and I don't want this very small amendment that I view as good governance to be the scapegoat for a bigger problem that might be underlying these projects.

I don't think it is okay.

I think everyone has ample opportunity to, in a different forum and in a different way, show if their displeasure or whatever it is that is underlying this conversation and this, what I view to be a political It is not based on this one very minor amendment that is not requiring honestly and truly much of anything at this point.

You are welcome to vote for it, not vote for it.

Obviously, we all have that prerogative, but I do not want it to the continual about costing money, more money or adding delays.

That is not true of this bill that we are voting on today.

This is not last week's version one or even version two.

This is now version three that I worked with the mayor's office on.

They are fine with it.

They don't view it as seeing delays or creating costs.

The department is the one doing the work, so they would say so if they felt that way.

I don't know how else to say that this now is getting usurped to make some other political point.

And I would request that you set those aside from this amendment and not have this amendment be something more than it really is.

so um thank you chair all right thank you very much council member rivera um kill can you display the uh corrected version of the amendment uh that's before us right now yeah so there's not the closest thing to a corrected version of the amendment is the well it probably it is it would be this this is the amendment this is the version of the amendment as amended um Okay, cool.

As I said before, the purpose of the underlying legislation is to streamline things, to move things forward, to get things on track.

And when I saw these, when I saw the amendment, And the corrected amendment, I did have specific questions for Sound Transit that I did ask and did get an answer.

And my ask was, is this going to slow you down?

Can you live with this?

And the answer was yes.

So in that spirit, Understanding that we're wanting transparency.

We wanna see an outreach plan because I think about the outreach that was done in the CID regarding station alignment there.

And a lot of people feeling that they were not heard.

So asking for them to, asking for Sound Transit to show us your work, show us what you're talking, show us who you talk to, and show us what you asked.

So we have a sense of that.

And again, my sense is from our partners is they're okay with that.

Again, they're already doing it.

So we're just asking them to show it to us.

Doesn't seem to be an undue burden for them.

So with that, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on the adoption of the amended version or amendment one as currently amended.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Abstain.

Council Member Moore.

Aye.

Council Member Rink.

Abstain.

Council Member Rivera.

Aye.

Chair Solomon.

Aye.

Chair, there are three votes in favor, zero opposed and two abstentions.

All right, thank you very much.

Now with that amendment, let's call the roll on the recommendation to pass Council Bill 120975.

Vice Chair Strauss?

Yes.

Council Member Moore?

Aye.

Council Member Rink?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

Chair, there are five votes in favor and zero, opposed?

Great, the motion carries.

The committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 120975 as the matter will be sent to the June 10th, 2025 Council meeting.

Thank you very much everybody.

Thank you for the very spirited debate.

Thank you all for hanging in there for it.

Let me just do a quick time, and thank you all for being here today.

Given the time, I'm going to do a quick time check to see, does anybody have a hard stop at 4 PM?

I do, Chair.

You do have a hard stop?

Okay.

give that because the next item of agenda is giving an overview of crime prevention through environmental design and I can go through a 30,000 foot level so that this committee understands and the community understands what it is we're trying to bring form in terms of getting crime prevention through environmental design codified in Seattle.

So with that, just need a minute or so to transition to the presentation table.

I don't know if this has ever happened before.

Going down there?

Yes.

If you could put it in presentation mode, thank you.

I know this is kind of odd, but I am going to run through very quickly an overview of what crime prevention through environmental design is for the purposes of trying to get it codified in Seattle.

Next slide.

The reason I am the presenter is because of my background.

The public may not know this.

My colleagues may not even know this.

Well, you do know I've been a 35-year or close to 35-year crime prevention coordinator with Seattle Police.

I've been a CPTED practitioner for about 25 years, maybe a little bit more than 25. I've also been a CPTED instructor for well over 10 years.

And currently, as president of the Washington State Crime Prevention Association, I am the primary CPTED instructor for that association.

And in the past few years, we've been able to certify over 150 individuals from multiple agencies as CEPTED-trained professionals.

Without bragging, I would say that I'm probably one of the most experienced, active CEPTED practitioners in Washington State.

Next.

So the intent of this presentation was to go over some definitions of SEPTED, or how do you define it, what some of the elements are, how it is applied, where it is codified, and how it can be codified in Seattle.

Next, please.

So we'll skip the crime triangle.

Yeah, next.

Well, actually, if you go back, when we talk, you know, in the crime triangle model, what we talk about is in order for a crime to occur, you need three things to happen.

You need an offender, you know, motivated offender, a target or victim, and a place for that crime to occur.

Now, we may not be able to do anything about the offender's motives or means.

We may not even be able to do anything about the person who may be the victim of that crime.

But through SEPTED, we can impact the place to make crime less likely to happen there, and that's a whole intent.

Next.

So SEPTED is defined as the proper design and effective use of the built environment that can lead to a reduction in fear and the incidence of crime and improvement in the quality of life.

When it comes right down to it, CEPTED is not only looking at the fiscal environment, it's looking at the interaction of people, and it's looking at how do we increase community, however you define that community.

We're just not talking about the Maple Leaf neighborhood.

You know, that's community.

But we could be talking about a school community.

We could be talking about a healthcare campus, you know, community.

We could be talking about a religious community.

So however you all define communities, not just neighborhood-specific, but it's how do people, groups, interact with each other.

Next, please.

Okay.

So it really is a multidisciplinary approach, and the goal really is to reduce opportunities for crime that may be inherent in the design of the built environment.

The way we design our environment can encourage positive behaviors, as well as discourage negative behaviors.

And that's one of our goals.

Next, please.

I'm skipping through these because y'all can read.

I was told long ago in the Air Force, like, I can read.

Don't brief me the slide.

So...

When we look at CEPTED, we consider what we call the three Ds, designation, definition, and design.

And bottom line, what it comes down to is all human space has some designated purpose.

What is this thing?

What is it intended to be?

And there's definitions of that space.

What are the borders?

Who owns it?

How do you identify who owns it?

How do you identify what's acceptable in that environment?

And then all human space is designed to support that purpose.

So how do you build a thing to support what it is you want to have happen at the thing?

Next.

So CEPTED has five overlapping concepts.

Natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcement, image and maintenance, and social management.

Next.

So natural surveillance really does come down to increasing the perception that people can be seen, and you do that through the placement of different features that maximize visibility.

So from a crime prevention standpoint, if you increase the possibility that the criminal offender can be seen, you reduce the likelihood that that offender will commit that crime.

Next.

Some of the design strategies for natural surveillance are avoiding lighting that creates glare or shadows, avoiding construction that provides for ambush points or areas of concealment.

You'd see some examples of landscaping, landscaping that is low that allows people to see you know, throughout their environment without obstructing shrubbery.

Even stairwell design, being able to see, you know, through stairwells as opposed to having solid stairwells that allow for someone to tuck underneath them, like in many of the apartment buildings that I've reviewed, that you walk into the stairwell and at the bottom of the stairwell that is completely blocked, there's somebody just camped out and it's obvious that they've been there for a while.

Next, please.

So design strategies including placing windows overlooking sidewalks and parking areas, using short fencing to, again, allow for that natural visibility, you know, increasing glazing areas.

And a lot of this also comes into contrast, or not contrast, but complements some of the LEED building requirements.

Again, allowing in more natural light, which also allows for more natural surveillance.

Next, please.

Natural access control really is how are people guided through a space.

And this can be done through how you design the streets, the walkways.

It can be done through landscaping, by having clearly defined entryways, controlling other access points, making it clear where people are supposed to enter a space, having a comprehensive wayfinding system.

And while there's natural access control, there are also organized and mechanical access control.

And we'll see a couple of those examples here.

Next, please.

For example, you see the key card.

That's a natural example of access control.

Bollards allows for pedestrian traffic, but doesn't allow for vehicles to intrude.

Turnstiles, fences, these are all measures or examples of access control.

Next, please.

When we think about access control, we also have to think about target hardening, whereas target hardening is focusing on preventing entry or access We have to be careful that we don't have excessive target hardening Like bars on windows may send the wrong message You know when I walk down the street and I see a place that has bars on the windows and Doesn't exactly invite me to want to go into that business.

So how else can we harden that target?

without it's creating that forcing effect, right?

Something as simple that you may not even think about in your own homes.

The most vulnerable part of your front door is not the locking mechanism, it's the door jam.

Because when a door is forced open, it's the jam that gives, not the lock.

But you can strengthen your door just by installing longer screws in the strike plates where the lock goes, okay?

by having those screws embed into the stud surrounding the door, the framing around the door, it makes it much more difficult to force open a properly locked door.

That's an example of target hardening.

Some of the other examples that you can see here, having a full length astrogel on an outward opening door to prevent somebody from putting a pry bar in there.

There's his coffee shop in Georgetown that was having an issue with people breaking their windows to gain entry.

So they made decorative grill work that looks like their logo that they placed on the window.

So you can still use the window, you can still get that ventilation, but it's not gonna be used as an entry point, right?

There's a product called security film that Well, with this film applied, if someone tries to break through that window, the glass may shatter, but the film holds it in place.

So this is actually a better alternative to bars on windows.

It's not as obvious and still accomplishes the same thing.

Next, please.

Territory reinforcement really comes down to the issue of who owns the space?

What are the rules of conduct?

How do you define that territory?

And again, this can be done through the use of signage, fencing, pavement treatments, design elements, and helps define the difference between public, semi-public, semi-private, and private space.

Next.

Lighting, fencing, bollards, planter boxes, all of those are examples of territory reinforcement.

Where's it okay for .

And then where's it, oh, this is different.

I have to, you know.

that distinction between it's okay to be here, but not necessarily here without permission.

Next, please.

So again, some of these measures can be used in conjunction with each other.

Bollards, planters, boxes, for example, can be a territorial reinforcement measure as well as an access control measure.

Next.

Use the example of clutch cannabis.

They had somebody drive a front loader through their front window a few years back.

Now, first question I have is, where'd they get the front loader to drive through the place?

And by the way, they got $100 out of the ATM and about $1,000 worth of product.

So this was three years ago.

Next.

This is just a few weeks ago.

So they've put up bollards.

They've put up echo blocks.

They still haven't replaced the window.

So I don't know why.

Supply chain, I don't know.

Next.

Here's an example of...

Seattle Cannabis Company down in D2.

They also had a vehicle intrusion.

Someone just plowed through the place, stole a bunch of product.

Now, what you see here, after that happened, and while they're doing the repair, they did put up bollards.

Okay, next.

You can see now, again, a few weeks ago, they still have the bollards, but they've replaced the storefront.

Looks much nicer.

Again, but they've taken those measures to prevent those vehicle incursions, and I have worked with a lot of businesses in the past that have had vehicles drive through their storefronts to commit those burglaries.

Next.

Maintenance really does get down to a sense of somebody cares about this property, right?

it also gives the impression of ownership.

It allows for the continuation of that space where it's intended purpose.

And this is where landscaping comes in, right?

And this is where we talk about the, in SEPTA, we have the two-foot, six-foot, or the two-foot, eight-foot rule, which basically means ground cover is no higher than two feet, tree canopies no lower than six feet or no lower than eight feet.

And you want that so that at pedestrian scale, you can see completely around you.

You have good line of sight, good visibility.

In the example that's listed here or shown here, basically what was done was trimming the vegetation at this house, same house, just trim the vegetation down.

Now, neighbors have a better opportunity to see what's happening on that porch.

Um, so that, and the vegetation is trimmed down enough so that someone with hostile intent does not have the opportunity to work on a door or window without getting seen.

Okay.

Uh, so that's the purpose here.

Also, it allows for people inside the home to see what's going on outside, uh, better because they have better line of sight.

Next.

So here's some examples of, again, some good maintenance that you see on the left-hand side of your screen.

Again, on the right-hand side of the screen, before SEPTED improvements, again, some vegetation maintenance.

And bottom picture shows you, after they made the changes, how that opens up the lines of sight and, again, provides better visibility in and out of the property.

Next, please.

Okay, so again, examples of good maintenance.

You know, you've got the example of the lawns maintained, vegetation's low, tree limbs are high.

Looking at the bus shelter, you know, there's no graffiti, no trash, got some solar lights in there, looks really good.

Next, please.

And some examples of not so good.

I don't even know how you get those street lights to do something like that, but these are real examples.

Looking at the vegetation on the right-hand side, anybody feel comfortable walking through that?

Probably not.

I would say trim that back.

When you've got examples of doors being pried open, that again sends a message that no one really cares to take the time to make those repairs.

Same thing with the sign that's all marked up to graffiti.

It sends a message that no one cares about this environment.

Next, please.

And again, some other examples of just some slight changes.

On the top, just adding lighting, making sure the lighting is adequate.

And the bottom example, just doing some vegetation maintenance so there's better visibility into the parking lot.

So if anyone is intent on committing a car prowl, they're gonna be seen by somebody.

Next, please.

Now, social management, while the first four phases of CEPTED really focus on the physical environment, social management really focuses on that human interaction, that connectivity that we were talking about, that community, bringing people together.

So we have to consider that human element and how people interact in that space.

Next.

So there's an example of something that was done at Othello Park years ago where I worked with the Parks Department, City Light, and the surrounding community to make improvements at that park because it had been overtaken by a negative element.

So by making some vegetation maintenance improvements, by making some lighting improvements, by doing some enforcement on the part of the police department, by inviting in the local community, the church across the street, to sponsor some family-friendly activities in the park, we saw a change in who was using that space.

And from the work that was done years ago, I would say has culminated in what we see today with the Athenol International Festival that happens every August, like this year it's August 10th, brings thousands of people from around the region to this park.

And it's a great example of how the community can work together to activate a space for positive activity, and that's the whole purpose.

Can we change the environment to make it attractive for families and positive users?

That's our goal.

Next, okay.

And this slide just wraps it up.

How having large windows promotes that natural surveillance.

How porches and sidewalks can promote that social interaction between neighbors.

Having architecture or fencing rather that is low allows for visibility.

It doesn't provide those physical obstructions.

Vegetation that's low enough.

so that you can see over it and tree limbs that are high enough so that there's no obstructions in that way.

Next.

So if you want to talk about what are the major benefits of CPTED, reduction in crime, reduction of potential of crime, people feel safer in an environment that looks attractive.

If people are using it, If you've got more positive user groups, you're going to attract more positive user groups.

If people don't feel safe in an environment, they're going to act that way, and then who is using that environment?

You can also increase the level of economic activity in a neighborhood.

I've seen this, especially in Columbia City over the years, in the work that I've done.

Next, please.

Also, it can help lower costs.

If we can design something so that you don't have as many doors, you don't need as many lighting, you don't need as many security cameras, you don't need as many security guards, you're actually reducing the cost of a project.

And you're also reducing the amount of emergency responders or law enforcement responders you have to an environment if you can design it properly to reduce the potential for criminal activity.

Next.

Some of the obstacles of adopting SEPTED, a lot of people don't know what it is.

A lot of architects don't know what it is.

Many times the architectural vision conflicts with what me as a SEPTED practitioner would look at in terms of safety and security.

So we need to have, and increasingly more and more architects are incorporating SEPTED and security into their building designs.

A lot of existing buildings weren't designed with SEPTEP principles in mind.

A lot of what that I have had a chance to review is from that standpoint.

It's like, oh, we have this problem.

Well, I go, well, part of it is based on the way you designed the thing.

So my goal is to try to get in on the design phase, hopefully in the you know, below 60% design phase, so that the changes, the recommendations that we can make actually pencil out for somebody.

Because by the time we get to the 60 to 80% design phase, it's too late to make those kind of changes.

The resistance to change, I can't tell you how many times I've made recommendations, and the people that have made the recommendations go, nah, we're good.

So, that's always been an issue.

There's also this perception that SEPTED is a fix-all for everything.

It's not.

It's a tool.

It's a tool in a toolbox.

But it's a useful tool.

It's not going to solve all your problems, but it can be very helpful.

Oh, I have two minutes.

Okay.

Chair, I have my hand raised.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Number one, I need to...

You did, you got through 33 slides in 15 minutes.

I have a rule in my committee that presenters aren't allowed to bring more than 15 slides total.

So I don't know how you did that.

As I've reviewed your slide deck, I noticed that we're at a bit of a transition point where we're about to start talking about project specific.

I'm wondering if, Can you bring this back to the committee?

Because I'm interested.

My comments are actually on this slide though.

I'm a card carrying member of the I Love Architects Club.

And architects sometimes design things that they believe to be beautiful that in fact run afoul of SEPTED principles.

I've seen it all over the place.

The only way to get compliance there beyond education is code requirement.

And so I'd love to talk to you a little bit more about how we can put some of these things into code.

Yeah.

Because I know just from the land use process, that process will extend for many, many, many months.

Right.

Your knowledge here, I mean, this has been very informative.

So, yeah.

Point being, I'm requesting, can we finish the slide deck at a future meeting?

Yes.

And in being respectful of everyone's time, because we're just about out of time, I did want to take time to at least introduce this.

This is not the end of this discussion.

This is the beginning of the discussion.

So I'm happy to...

at our next land use committee meeting to jump into the next phases, which will go into some specific examples of what I've done, what I've reviewed and what I've gone back to those developers with, as well as where, what other municipalities have it in code and how we can adopt it in code to make sense for Seattle.

So, um, If the committee is acceptable or amenable to that, I'm seeing a thumbs up.

Okay, good, we're good.

Okay, so that I will close the presentation down at this time and rejoin the dais to continue to facilitate the meeting.

Oh, my hand's still raised.

Sorry.

I asked my question.

Hold hands.

All right, so as was mentioned, you know, this is just a tease around SEPTED 101. We will continue this conversation at our next committee.

And our next committee is scheduled for June 18th, I believe it is, 2 p.m.

Okay, June 18th, 2 p.m.

We have reached the end of our agenda for today.

Are there any further business to come before the committee?

Seeing none, we will be adjourned.

Appreciate your time and attention and enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you.