Seattle City Council 10/7/19

Good afternoon, everybody.

Thank you for being here in City Hall.

The October 7, 2019 City Council meeting will now come to order.

It's 2 o'clock p.m.

I'm Bruce Harreld, President of the Council.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Pacheco?

Here.

Sawant?

Here.

Bagshaw?

Here.

Herbold?

Here.

Juarez?

Here.

Mosqueda?

Here.

President Harreld?

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you very much.

We do have two excused absences for this afternoon's meeting, and generally speaking, the council rules are silent on providing council members an option to participate and vote by electronic means for regular meetings.

Council Member O'Brien had a previous commitment and is not able to be present with us today, but he's requested the opportunity to participate and vote until after consideration of agenda item number one, which I'll sort of refer to as the SEPA legislation.

So if there's no objection, I will ask, and I'll make a form of motion that he be allowed to participate by phone.

So I will move to allow Council Member O'Brien to participate and vote at today's City Council meeting until the conclusion of agenda item number one.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any further comments or questions on my motion?

If not, those in favor of the motion, please vote aye.

Aye.

Those opposed vote no.

The motion carries, and Councilmember O'Brien will be participating and vote until the conclusion of agenda item number one.

Now, having said all of that, let me make sure that it's working.

Councilmember O'Brien.

You can hear already?

Thank you, colleagues.

Okay.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Okay.

If there's no objection, the introduction and referral calendar will be adopted.

Hear no objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted.

If there is no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

Hear no objection, today's agenda will be adopted.

There are no minutes for approval today.

And similarly, there's no formal presentations today.

So at this time, we'll take public comment on item that appears on today's agenda, our introduction and referral calendar in the City Council's the 2019 work program.

Public comment will be extended for 20 minutes.

Let me sort of explain something that may not be clear.

We will have regular public comment that are on all general items, like I said on our introduction and referral calendar of our work program.

We'll also, later in the program, our agenda, have another public hearing, which is specifically on 976. And on that one, we'll allot the same amount of time, either pro or con on that legislation.

So if you signed up for the general comment, you're very welcome to speak twice on that one and then for the public hearing, that may be a little redundant and inefficient.

So when I go through the general comments section, which I'm going to do now, if you made a mistake and wanna just speak on the public hearing on 976, then just indicate so and we'll make sure you have the right amount of time for that hearing, okay?

So having said that, these are all general comments sections, correct?

That's 976?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay, first to speak will be and again, uh, if I hope I made it clear that you might be on the wrong list or sign up for the wrong list, but be that as it may legale Sasson sassony Yeah, I I know who you are, but I apologize, uh, that's all right and followed by tom allen Go ahead legal I am legale.

So snowy a downtown resident this bill CB 119600 is not about affordable housing or frivolous appeals.

It is about stripping us of our rights to appeal poor, nonfunctional, health-threatening designs in a move by wealthy, mostly out-of-state and foreign developers and their clever attorneys.

These developers are the obstructionists.

They are pushing the appeals angle to you because they don't want to be asked to mitigate health and public safety impacts, like loss of daylight to the residents of surrounding buildings and overwhelming the public streets and alleys with the servicing of these megatowers.

If you really want to solve affordable housing, the best place to start is to toughen up design review, not make it easier for them to breeze through SEPA.

This bill claims it will provide better SEPA rules and process.

Rather than cramming it down our throats today, let's see what those rules and processes are by delaying this bill until it can be properly vetted.

Thank you.

Tom Allen will be followed by Steve Zemke.

Hello and thank you for hearing us out today.

I just wanted to show a few examples of EIS appeals that have come up.

This is from the Ford Lawton EIS appeal.

The main thing highlighted here is saying can we please put it somewhere else.

The next page has a section on parking.

This is from the Finney Flats Appeal and this is actually from a public comment from the leader of the group that led that appeal.

All of these highlighted things are simply about parking and not really about the environment.

This is from the Bullitt Center EIS Appeal.

This was built to be the greenest building in the world.

All of these highlighted things are about parking and how they wanted more parking.

53% of greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle are from private automobile use.

So it flies in the face of building a green building to appeal based off of adding more parking.

This is from the East Lake Micro Housing EIS appeal.

This one brought up public safety and neighborhood impacts from transients, which is a dog whistle for renters.

And below that is, again, parking.

This is from the HALA recommendations.

They looked at 15 years of appeals.

Very few were not covered by other codes in the city.

And they noted that it increases the cost of housing, and not just through projects not happening, but also through delay.

and housing delayed is housing denied.

This is malicious use of SEPA, flies in the face of why it was created, and please pass this common sense reform.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tom.

Following Steve will be Richard Ellison.

So my name is Steve Zemke.

I have grave concerns about passing this type of legislation under council bill.

that you're looking at with the eliminating SEPA review.

And just to start out with your very introduction to it says city codes have evolved in recent decades that there's generally less need to employ SEPA.

because city codes and requirements effectively mitigate environmental impacts.

And then says these codes and processes are periodically updated, generally moving in a direction of greater protections.

One of the ordinances you don't mention is the tree ordinance that you've been supposedly before you for 10 years.

And you're saying we update these things, we deal with them.

The other issue with that particular ordinance A code is that, as I've told you before, I think it's a scandal of the city council and the city that the SMC 2511090 that said developers must replace all trees 24 inches and larger, and that are exceptional, that's been in the code since 2001. And it is not being enforced, and I think, again, that is a scandal.

And to say that there isn't a need for appeals, for bringing things before you for issues, I think is wrong.

I support Lisa Herbold's amendment and such as it is, but I really think it needs to be expanded that you need to set up in the City Department of Environment.

It's pretty ridiculous to have the Department of Construction Inspections, whose mission is to help people build, to have them at the same time be overseeing environmental regulations.

I think you really need to give serious consideration to this.

It's been brought before you before, but I think it's being ignored.

I think what you're doing is actually very Trumpian, saying let's get rid of these environmental regulations because they're not the problem.

I don't think they're the problem.

I think you need to put money into public housing and not expect the private developers to do it because they are out there to make money, and they're not going to make money off the public housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Richard, before you begin, let me call three names.

Following Richard would be Frank Faye, Janet Way, and then Alice Lockhart.

Alice Lockhart.

Thank you.

My name is Richard Ellison.

Seattle City Council, please vote no on the CEPA Bill CV119600.

CEPA in this terms means Slaughter the Entire Policy of Appeals.

Seattle's DCI, the Department of Construction and Inspections, is the wolf in charge of the slaughterhouse of development.

In terms of feeding the hungry housing needs of Seattle, DCI decides how the neighborhood chickens are going to be humanely slaughtered to feed the hungry housing market.

Currently, if a chicken wants to appeal his neighborhood's slaughter, he or she can appeal to the top DCI judge, the hearing examiner, a long-term DCI employee project manager who has processed so many slaughter applications over the years, they are deemed honorable and experienced to make the neighborhood's life and death decisions.

Now in a rush to stop these wasteful appeals of mass slaughter, because as we know, the hungry, churning masses require as many dead chickens as possible to satisfy the hungry, current housing-feeding frenzy, The esteemed City Council wishes to bypass this wasteful court appeals process and give the invisible management, DCI Wolf Managers, the final say in all the big new citywide slaughterhouse decisions.

No need to pretend these SEPA appeals have any positive function anymore, because the hungry masses want as many dead chickens as can be processed.

The DCI promises to do the killing in as humanely a possible manner as needed.

trust us says the wolf with a gleam in his eye I'm just your hungry grandma.

In terms of this I do support the Herboldt amendments should you decide to pass this amendment which I urge you not to pass the whole up the whole anti appeal bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I testify here in frustration to urge rejection of Council Bill 119-600, which will gut SEPA review of development actions in Seattle.

This bill is a prime example of Orwellian Newspeak.

It claims to advance the environment by the destruction of green space and the destruction of naturally occurring affordable housing.

This bill will destroy an already fragile urban environment, ignore the environmental impacts of rampant development, leaving a greater burden on future generations.

It will accelerate the displacement of low- and middle-income residents from Seattle.

It will make it more difficult to seriously address global warming.

It greatly increases gentrification, and it provides no additional affordable housing.

It will further enrich the already privileged and muzzled voice of impacted citizens.

I wish each of you council members to think about what you want to do today, and several of you, I believe, to visit your legacy on this council.

Do you want to support this legislation that rewards money-grubbing, environmentally destructive behavior?

If you vote for this bill and then come back and support the Green New Deal, we will know that you are a hypocrite.

I urge you to prove me wrong.

Hello, Council.

I'm Alice Lockhart with 350 Seattle and the Green New Deal.

And I respectfully disagree with the gentleman before me.

I believe all of you on Council know that your most important legacy will be your climate legacy.

And I'm legacy.

And our wild lands outside of Seattle are rapidly filling with people who can't afford to live in Seattle.

We would love, I know council would love to build as much affordable housing as would house everyone who wants to move into this city.

We don't have the money.

We are not going, the taxpayers are not going to magically come up with all of that money.

We have to have a combination of market-based and solutions in social housing.

We all know this to be true.

This bill is common sense legislation that simply adopts in our code legislation already adopted at the state level to make it somewhat easier to build climate-friendly housing in this city, and I urge you to pass it with all of its strength intact, which means, and I'm sorry to have to say this, which means I urge you not to vote for the Fourth Amendment, which, Problematic though parking is in this city, saying that we have to subject to full review any large building, housing building with over 40 parking spaces will automatically subject a lot of buildings to review and will defeat in many ways the purpose of this measure.

So I urge everyone to vote for the legislation and against Amendment 4. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alice will be followed by Megan Cruz and then Robert Seidman.

Seidman?

Yes.

You are?

I'm Janet Way.

No, I called you out all three.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

So hold up, Janet.

You're now, then Alice, then Megan.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Janet Way.

I'm representing Save the Market Entrance, which is representing about 80,000 people who want to protect the Pike Place market from impacts of development.

So why does SEPA matter for sustainable development?

Because in Seattle we have important environmental assets.

We have creeks supporting salmon.

We have beaches and fisheries that impact orca whales.

We have parks with hundreds of thousands of trees that fight climate change every day for free.

And beautiful thriving neighborhoods with historic assets and existing affordable housing.

In fact, in 1989, I represented a group, the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, that daylighted Thornton Creek at Northgate.

We utilized the SEPA appeals to achieve that goal.

And what I think you would agree was a important milestone for sustainability.

And I believe you would agree, correct?

And in fact, that little creek that you have running right through City Hall, I believe was created as a symbol because of the work we did to daylight Thornton Creek.

So if Seattle City Council wants to stand up for sustainability, your responsibility is to preserve citizens' rights.

The right to comment and appeal is your process.

It's the process for the citizens through SEPA and its fundamental value.

Seattle's sense of place is at stake.

Seattle's values are at stake.

We request a delay, not a rush to judgment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alice, Alice here, Alice Lockhart.

No.

Oh yeah, that's what I thought.

Okay, so Megan.

Alice, you have to speak again when you do that.

No, I'm just kidding.

So, Megan, Robert, and then Jesse Simpson.

Thank you.

I'm Megan Cruz, here to speak on behalf of the Fisher Studio Building and other buildings facing severe environmental impacts from unmitigated developments.

We wish there were fewer appeals.

They're a drain on everyone's time and resources, and not everyone's able to put one together.

But the city's land use system is forcing appeals because it doesn't provide clear and consistent environmental checks at the earliest stages of design review and MUP, and this bill does nothing to address this problem.

SDCI claims we really don't need SEPA because it's already covered in existing codes, policies, and plans, and it offers this document attached to the bill as its proof.

I'd like to submit this attachment annotated as on the record and give you an example of why it's incorrect.

I live in a 100-year-old city preservation residential landmark.

We in another residential building on our block are next to proposed twin towers that will cause us to lose up to 94% of our daylight.

Developers of this tower say they are not obligated to do anything to mitigate and that zoning allows them every right to do what they're doing.

That's why we need SEPA.

Last year, the hearing examiners supported appeals with remands on access to daylight and protection of settings for historic landmarks.

But still, even though that happened last year, there's been nothing of this sort of protection talked about at design review.

In short, the protections that SDCI cites here are meaningless.

They're applied arbitrarily or not at all.

The bill sets aside due process by making SDCI the sole arbiter of new SEPA policy.

We ask you, the people we elect, to make this legislation work for all your constituents.

Appeals are not always frivolous, and the cause of lack of affordable housing is more complicated than this is being said.

Please, don't vote yes for this bill.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Robert.

Sideman.

Robert Sideman, then Jesse Simpson.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

As a board member of Save the Market Entrance, I again request that you not pass CB 119600. The question to be asked is why are there appeals at all and how can they be more meaningfully addressed?

These are issues that my group have experienced in their own appeal.

SEPA and its requirements are ignored during design review and the MUP process.

SDIC encourages challenges by granting design waivers and departures to existing code without any documentation.

SDCI works closely with and faces continuous pressure from the developers.

Its decisions often reflect this.

And the way the system is set up, the hearing examiner is the only designated outlet for mitigation.

The talent and resources of concerned groups with earnest misgivings have spent thousands of hours studying this problem and are eager to help and fix it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jesse.

Hi, I'm Jesse Simpson.

I volunteer with the Capitol Hill Renter Initiative and Share the Cities.

I grew up in Seattle, in West Seattle, and currently live in Capitol Hill.

I'd like to speak in favor of this bill to reform SEPA.

Seattle faces a housing affordability crisis and a climate crisis.

We all know this.

Allowing and building denser housing types like duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments throughout Seattle is key to addressing both of these issues.

New denser housing in Seattle means that people can live in low-carbon lifestyles in the city rather than out in new subdivisions in Marysville, Issaquah, or Black Diamond.

It also means that those of us not lucky enough to have bought a home in the 80s or 90s when that was in reach for the middle class can afford to rent apartments in the city.

We need to allow the many people who would love to live in Seattle in walkable, culturally vibrant, and transit-connected communities to do so.

It's perverse that SEPA as it currently stands is being used to delay and block the multifamily housing we need throughout the city.

During the time I've been paying attention to local politics, I've only seen SEPA be used to delay progressive reforms that we need.

like mandatory housing affordability, the Burke-Gilman missing trail connection, and accessory dwelling unit reform.

As a prior commentator mentioned, even the greenest building in the world, the Bullitt Center, faced SEPA appeal because it didn't include any parking and the solar panels overhung the building.

I commend the council's work on this legislation and urge you to pass it as is.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So, we've actually gone pretty much to the 20-minute time.

Actually, I have two more minutes.

We started 19 minutes ago.

So, John Saucony, I'll let you go for two minutes, and then I may have to take the time down because we still have a sheet and a half if we're to extend public comment.

So, John, and then you'll be followed by.

I'm going to make it easy for you.

I'm going to only use one minute.

Well, then make us all happy.

Go ahead, John.

I'm John Sosnowi, and I'm submitting my testimony on 119-600 as a resident at Escala and a member of the Downtown Residents Alliance.

While we appreciate the brief appointment at the last minute to discuss this legislation with us, it doesn't come close to addressing our concerns.

For example, allowing DCI to call the shots on SEPA appeals is like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

And I want to remind you that you'll be breaking the law if you do pass the bill today, because as we have notified you, portions of this bill require formal SEPA review, including a threshold determination and public comment period, which has not been done.

One staffer was even quoted as saying, council's not interested in SEPA review.

To me, that's showing utter contempt for the law, as well as fake environmentalism.

The real tragedy is there are some good things in this bill, some needed provisions, and it could work for everyone if you'll just take the time to do it right.

But today, it must be delayed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So what I'd like to do is extend public comment, but I'm going to take it down to one minute a person.

We have about 12 people, and this is an important issue.

I want to hear from all 12 of them.

So unless there's objection, we're going to go through the 12 lists.

This is not I'm not talking about the 976 legislation.

I'm just talking about general public comments.

So why don't we keep plowing through it.

We'll hear from Deborah Bogan-Cohen, followed by Ace Houston, but take the clock down to one minute, please.

Deborah, are you here?

Okay, no, thank you.

Ace Houston, would you like to speak?

And then following by Ace is Calvin Jones.

Hi, council.

My name is Ace.

I am a queer architect of color.

I am someone who moved to Seattle just right before the end of 2016 from Texas.

I have been a renter my entire life, and before when I moved here, I actually was not licensed, and so I'm now a licensed architect, but part of that process was jumping at the gun at a new project that was in my office, and that was the Madison PCC project, and so I worked on that project.

I saw that project, which had begun in 2015 and is still yet to be under construction, go through numerous EDGs, numerous design reviews, and there were many changes that happened to accommodate lots of concerns by the residents who lived around that potential, hopefully, future site.

That project is still not sufficient enough to the wealthy white homers who live in that area and they appealed it.

And unfortunately, because of that process, that was one of the reasons why I lost my job.

And so I hope that you please keep in mind that there are people who suffer the impacts of delays through the SEPA appeal process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ace.

Calvin Jones here.

Following Calvin will be Julia Bebout.

Hi, my name is Calvin Jones, and I'm an organizer with Tech for Housing.

I'm here to support the SEPA legislation as written.

In my experience as a housing advocate, I've seen SEPA used in three main cases, Fort Lawton, MHA, and the accessory dwelling unit forms.

And in all cases, it was a very small set of wealthy homeowner groups that were able to raise tens of thousands of dollars to sue the city and delay our public processes on these issues for years, if not decades in total.

I think that process is A, very undemocratic because it lets a very, very small subset of voices squash all other voices in the city while that litigation is ongoing, and B, it takes way, way too long.

We have a housing affordability crisis and a climate crisis, and we don't have time to litigate front of the hearing examiner every single detail of these proposed policies.

We need to act boldly.

We need to act quickly.

So please pass this legislation and then let's move on to raise more revenue for affordable housing and legalize more types of housing in our exclusive single-family zones.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Julia Beabout.

I'm a licensed professional engineer with over 25 years of experience in the building design and construction industry and a lead accredited professional.

I'm also a downtown business owner and resident.

I'm gonna go off script here, because what I'm hearing today is exactly why this bill should be delayed.

So I actually agree with what the opposing side is saying on a lot of things.

And what I'm hearing is they're coming at it from a low rise perspective.

They're making a lot of good points.

I live in a high-rise downtown section.

So we all, I think, support, strongly support affordable housing, and we all agree that that needs to come through densification of our existing land use.

The problem is how that densification manifests.

So for them, I would agree that it should not be building a new duplex in a low-rise area.

Nobody wants to stop that, or most people don't want to stop that.

But when you take our situation, where you're building a 46-story skyscraper next to six historic buildings on a block, while the sustainability of their footprint of the skyscraper is increasing or improving, it's actually decreasing the sustainability of every single building around them.

So, you really need to be able to look at what is the overall impact.

So, I urge you to delay approval of this bill and fine-tune it as is needed.

Good afternoon, Council.

Is this on?

Yes, I think.

Hi, I'm Brittany Bushbolay, I'm the Chair of the Sierra Club Seattle Group.

I am not feeling 100% today, so I apologize for being brief, but this is important.

I really wanted to be here.

I am here to speak in favor of Council Bill 119600. One of the most important things we can do for the environment is make it easier for people to live near where they work and play.

Council Bill 119600 smooths the path for adding much needed housing in our city by preventing predatory delay of projects that are already well studied and clearly safe and green.

In the midst of both a housing and climate crisis, we must do all we can to enable the creation of new homes and locations that reduce car dependency and allow people to choose to walk bus, bike, or roll around the city.

Thank you for your support and for taking these common sense changes under advisement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Patience.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Patience Malava, and I'm here on behalf of the Housing Development Consortium.

I'm here to express our strong support for the SEPA changes as proposed by the Plas Committee.

SEPA is of immense value for environmental protections, and we are excited to see Council take a very responsible environmental step of returning SEPA to its original intent, and that is to protect our environment.

We protect our environment by building sustainable cities where people have housing choices near jobs, near transit, near services, and near schools.

It's unfortunate that over the years, SIPA has been used for predatory efforts, as you have already had, to delay desperately needed homes for people in our city.

And this cannot continue when we today as a region must build 44,000 every five years in order to make sure that low-income and moderate-income households are not paying more than a third of their income.

So a delay on a tool that continues to delay efforts for more housing is not an option that we have today.

Thank you.

Following Chris will be Lisa Kuhn and then Stephen Roberts.

Am I next?

Yes, you are, Chris.

I have to protest the unprecedented electronic voting by an absent council member.

I endorse past points made against the SEPA destruction bill, which is ill-named.

It's not an update.

It's a destruction of Seattle's great leadership on environmental protection.

I have led several SEPA appeals, always as a volunteer and never with paid legal help.

And I would defy anybody to look at those records and most appeals and find anything of the caricatures of criticism that we've heard of these appeals.

This bill will not promote affordable housing.

It will, in fact, increase displacement and gentrification and it will deny the residents of densifying neighborhoods a decent quality of life.

We must talk about a balanced kind of housing.

Otherwise, we're consigning people to living in concrete and not to have greenery and wildlife around them.

They need peace and quiet.

They need air and water quality.

And yes, parking and loading for the disabled and elderly and small businesses.

Design review, zoning decision, DCI, that is not a sufficient alternative.

You've got to send this back for the fair professional analysis that hasn't occurred.

This is a terrible disservice to the city council.

And you've got to start over.

Thank you.

I had Lisa next.

Is Lisa here?

Okay, Lisa and then Stephen Roberts.

I'm Lisa Kuhn.

We're here today because you intend to use CB 119600 to undo SEPA regulations.

We're here today because you appear to be racing President Trump to be the first to destroy our existing environmental protections.

In this month's Smithsonian Magazine, there was an article about William O'Dwyer, the mayor of New York City from 1945 to 1949. Here's a quote from that article.

Defining corruption as a personal hunger for luxuries or stuffing cash in one's pocket, as Americans often do, is to mistake the essence of the offense, which is to destroy public trust in the institutions that are supposed to keep people safe.

environmental protections that are supposed to keep people safe.

Even if you don't care about pollution and effluent going into the sand and killing salmon and whales, we care.

Even if you don't care about tree canopy loss resulting in bird populations going down, we care.

And we're going to sprawl.

Thank you.

Stephen will be followed by Is it Williams, Beal, something IE?

Is it Bernie or something?

Bonnie.

Bonnie Williams will follow Stephen.

Thank you.

Two of the most important duties of the Seattle City Council are to protect citizens' rights under the Environmental Protection Act and to represent all of Seattle residents equally, and this bill would violate both of those duties.

The 2018 annual report of the City of Seattle Office of the Hearing Examiner says in most years approximately three to four percent of master use permits, the large projects, are repealed to the housing examiner.

That means that 96 to 97% do not have appeals.

And my understanding of this bill is to get the money for affordable housing more quickly from the big developers.

Well, in 96 to 97% of the cases, there's no appeals, that money goes directly.

And this bill deprives the rest of the people who might have very, very significant claims under the environmental protection of their right to appeal.

And everybody wants more affordable housing.

The only ones who don't are the big developers because they are for-profit corporations.

Their job is to maximize profits and not to protect the environment.

Wrap up, sir?

Pardon me?

Your time is out.

Can you just wrap up?

Okay.

It was a quick minute, okay.

Well, the clock is right in front of you.

I mean, I didn't speed it up.

Good afternoon.

I'm Bonnie Williams.

Bonnie, let me call before you start.

Don't start at time.

Oh, sorry.

The two speakers after you are last speakers on this matter.

That'd be Martin Westerman and then Tiernan Martin.

So, Bonnie, Martin, Tiernan, that's all I have for the general matter.

Okay, I'm Bonnie Williams, and I strongly oppose the changes to CEPA 119600. The laws are designed for protection to the environment.

There are a lot of categories included in the CEPA laws.

The false narratives from Mike O'Brien at previous meetings that citizens only seek delay and that appeals do not have merit is outrageous.

That's why I came.

I've been a part of this process for over three years.

I have been to numerous hearings, public engagement, open houses.

There has been a lot of false narratives pointed at single family homeowners, name calling.

It's been a very divisive process.

It's really hard to get into the process, and pretty much a lot of doors have been closed during weakening of the design review process.

And so what has happened, if you did analysis, you could see that there's a lot of mistakes that have been made in the last couple of years, and the city could learn from their mistakes.

The process for MHA and AduDadu that took so long had a broken and dysfunctional public engagement process that claimed to listen to neighborhood residents.

but largely ignored a lot of feedback to modify legislation.

Citizens asked for, asked developers to build more housing in the projects being built instead of making opting out more attractive and therefore causing delays for affordable housing that can take years to materialize.

That passed.

The city created delays in this way, not the public.

Thank you.

Martin, followed by Tiernan, and then Joyce will be our last speaker.

Thank you.

I'm representing the Seattle Green Spaces Coalition, and we oppose 119-600 in its current form.

Seattle is now one of America's 10 worst urban heat islands.

Its traffic congestion ranks sixth worst, its air pollution is bad, and it's losing tree cover every year.

These are all consequences of developing buildings without adding tree cover and green space.

Now it appears the council wants to weaken environmental protections using 119-600.

More building development without urban forest and green space development will make our environmental problems worse.

So we'd like to see Seattle's SEPA process strengthened, not weakened.

We need to cool our heat island, reduce pollution, and counter the effects of climate change.

State law gives the city until April of 2021 to consider and adopt reasonable, environmentally friendly provisions.

So we urge you to table this measure, rethink your priorities, and let the newly elected council revisit the issue next year.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

I'm Tiernan Martin with FutureWise, and I'm here this afternoon to impress upon you the importance of the SEPA reforms contained in Council Bill 119600, and to urge you to pass this bill without delay.

As you know, Seattle and other cities across the state face a crisis of homelessness and housing inaffordability.

At the same time, the influx of new residents and jobs has exacerbated development pressure on agricultural and forest lands, as well as our many bodies of water.

The Growth Management Act provides a framework for protecting our natural systems by focusing housing and job growth in high-opportunity transit-service cities like Seattle.

Unfortunately, over time, one of the primary tools of environmental stewardship, SEPA, has been used to prevent the changes needed to realize this vision.

This is precisely the problem that the bill before you would address, and we urge you to adopt it as proposed.

Regarding Amendment 4, we do not support this policy change because it would substantially constrain the ability of large projects to be funded and built.

That said, we welcome the opportunity for dialogue on the types of strategies to reduce parking minimums and decrease housing development on parking.

Thank you.

Our last speaker is Joyce.

My name is Joyce Lem.

I am a retired resident living in my place for about 30 years in a single-family residence, and I used the SEPA appeal process back in the mid-90s, and thank God it was what it was then because we did get corrections.

mitigation to adverse environmental impacts on my block.

Now we have a lesser scourge of drugs and prostitution, possibly, because we were able to get the size of a project reduced for more parking.

So yes, parking is an issue.

But yes, it was an error in the MUP that we appealed.

CEPA appeals are often the only way in which informed citizens, and I learned all that stuff on the fly back in 95, and it's different now, it's going to be even harder, that we can ensure that there is some potential mitigation.

SEPA and access to even the quasi-independent review by the Seattle Hearing Examiner is the only balancing act to that overt and overwhelming influence of commercial development, which is goal is profit.

So I urge you to vote no on this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joyce.

Thank you all for your testimony.

I'm sorry I did shortchange some of you on a minute.

I know that was very tough.

I appreciate you working with us.

So at this time, we're going to move on with our agenda, and we'll start with the payment of the bill, so please read the title.

Council Bill 119662, appropriating money to base auditing claims for the week of September 23rd, 2019 through September 27th, 2019, and ordering the payment thereof.

I'll move to pass Council Bill 119662. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that the bill pass.

Any comments?

Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Pacheco?

Aye.

Sawant.

Aye.

Bagshaw.

Aye.

Herbold.

Aye.

Juarez.

Aye.

Mosqueda.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Aye.

President Harrell.

Aye.

Eight in favor and none opposed.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

Please read the first agenda item.

The report of the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee agenda item 1, Council Bill 119600 relating to environmental review amending sections 3.02.110, 25.05.035, .055, .070, .100, .440, .448, .545, .680, .800, .900, and .914 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify timelines and the content of administrative appeals to authorize the development of directors, rules, to clarify the content of environmental documents and to make corrections and technical amendments.

Committee recommends we'll pass as amended.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Pacheco, are you leading with it or Council Member O'Brien?

I will be leading with it.

Did you want to talk about the amendments first or did you want to?

No, I'd rather talk about the base legislation first.

We have four amendments as I understand them, but let's get through the base.

legislation, and if possible, I'd like the proposers to try to address many of the what seem to be valid concerns from both sides that we heard from public testimony today.

So we'll start off just with the base legislation, Council Member.

Sure, so colleagues, thank you for being here today and this legislation is a culmination of a three month process that began with environmental organizations like Future Wise, Transportation Choices Coalition, Climate Solutions, and Sightline that sent a letter to the council requesting that we update our city's SEPA policies in response to changes to state law.

The proposed changes are common sense reforms to make our SEPA process work better for the environment, The legislation would align our city code to match changes in state law, limits hearing examiner appeals to 120 days, clarifies which portions of the environmental impact statements are subject to appeals, and aligns our SEPA thresholds for urban villages with urban centers.

In shaping this legislation, I have met with stakeholders, including the hearing examiner, Mansell, environmental groups, Megan Cruz, who spoke earlier today, and downtown residents, SCCI, Ted Hunter from the Wallingford Community Council, and I've also had the opportunity to go on the Jason Rand Show to speak on behalf of the importance of this legislation.

So my committee has done its due diligence with regards to meeting with a variety of stakeholders who have had an interest in seeing this process through.

We've also held three committee meetings and a public hearing process as well.

I also want to take a moment to address some of the claims that I have heard and clarify a few things about what this legislation does not do.

This proposal does not end SEPA review.

It does not eliminate SEPA challenges based on transportation impacts.

It does not allow SDCI or design review boards to unilaterally set rules or thresholds for SEPA review, and it does not change SEPA thresholds for downtown or other urban centers.

Opponents of this legislation have unfortunately portrayed this effort as trading away environmental protections in exchange for affordable housing.

But I reject framing this conversation as a trade-off between one or the other.

This council understands that building dense, sustainable housing in our city and addressing the climate crisis are not contradictory.

They go hand in hand.

That's why so many environmental advocates are supporting this legislation.

As Brittany Bush Belay of the Seattle Club and Alice Lockhart of 350 Seattle wrote in today's Seattle Times, one of the most powerful ways Seattle can safeguard the environment is by welcoming more homes into the city, curtailing climate pollution and sprawl.

This legislation helps us do just that.

It makes modest changes to update our code to better reflect our climate priorities.

Finally, I want to thank my colleagues on the Council, Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Mosqueda, Councilmember Herbold, for working with me and my team to offer amendments in this legislation, as well as Lish Whitson on central staff for all of his work to getting us to this far.

I also want to thank all the environmental leaders who advocated for these changes in Olympia and challenged the City of Seattle to move forward as well.

So I'm happy to discuss each of the amendments if you like, Council President.

Before we get to the amendments, there might be some questions on the base legislation.

Council Member Beckshaw.

And Councilmember Pacheco, I don't know if this is something that you want to address or Councilmember O'Brien on the phone.

I know that recently, last year, after multiple years of work at the legislature, that laws were passed there that authorized categorical exemptions for infill here in Seattle.

And I wonder if you can talk about what the intention was for the legislature there, what the intention of the conversations have been at your committee, And where we are now, because we listen to the audience and they're concerned about losing rights of appeal, and I'd like to know whether or not, A, we are aligned with the state's legislation, and secondly, how you address the questions that they have said we're losing our appeal rights.

Sure, so this is in response, direct response to House Bill 1923, which advocates here today had outlined as well to Olympia and Olympia acted in response to what they had seen in examples here in Seattle where The SEPA process was misused and weaponized in a way such to have delays for affordable housing projects and different projects, as we've seen throughout Seattle.

The Burke-Gilman, for example, as we heard today in testimony with the Bullitt Center, as well as for MHA, the ADU legislation, as well as for Lawton.

And so, Olympia and the state provided until April, spring of 2021 for cities across the state to update our SEPA standards.

As such, we led an extensive process that did the outreach with a variety of stakeholders to respond to what the state has allowed us to do.

It has not taken away anyone's authority to to appeal or to allow development projects to not undergo SEPA or to circumvent any of the processes such as some proponents have claimed.

Rather, it streamlines that process and allows us to move forward in response to what we've heard from different affordable housing advocates as well as environmental groups.

So can I just quickly follow up?

Talk to me please about the streamlining because we heard today that many many concerns have been raised that their appeal rights have either been eliminated or reduced.

Can you describe that?

Sure.

So appeals will now have a 120 day time limit and a 30 day extension if both parties agree.

120 days is the average of what we've heard from the hearing examiner, which is why that time frame was selected.

We've seen appeals where they've dragged on for months, if not years.

And so, again, people will still have the opportunity to appeal, but we've now put the processes in place and the timeline in place so that this appeal process does not drag on for much longer than it is intended to.

In addition to that, we've also asked for the hearing examiner to come back in the annual report that's due next year with opportunities for us to make additional process improvements.

And so we will go through that process again as a council next year.

to make any additional improvements and hopefully accept those recommendations from the hearing examiner.

So, I had a question too, Council Member Herbold.

Please, Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I just want to share with you all some information from the hearing examiner about the language in the ordinance that relates specifically to the timeline.

I don't think it's a problem, but I think it's important that people understand the examples where the amount of time has exceeded 120 days.

Those examples are times when both parties, the city and the appellant, agreed.

to take more time.

So for instance, during the delay of the MHA appeal, hearing examiner Vance will explain to me that all parties, including the city, had scheduled conflicts for their representatives and witnesses that delayed the conclusion of the hearing.

And so that extension was an agreement of both parties.

And when that happens, it's standard.

It's very unusual for one party to object.

The Fort Lawton case.

The hearing examiner explains that that case was delayed most significantly because it originally required four days to complete and the hearing schedule could not accommodate four days because the MHA hearing schedule and other already had already scheduled meetings.

Given that the city and the appellant typically agree to extend the timelines, and this bill itself doesn't actually prohibit the extension of timelines, even though we're giving another timeline, it's unlikely from the hearing examiner's perspective that this aspect of the bill will have actual impact on the timeline because it doesn't affect what is the practice that is that has led to previous longer timelines.

So that's not these aren't comments to oppose this part of the bill it's just merely to make sure that we have reasonable expectations of what this language in the bill will actually accomplish.

If I may councilmember Brian, I'll recognize you in a minute and I want to make a comment or a question so perhaps in your response you could Respond to it as well part part of my concern on the the base legislation is It seems as though we are put in a position to pit our need and desire to build affordable housing with a a person's right to use the SEPA appeal process as he or she sees fit.

That when I hear terms like SEPA being used or weaponized, I think was the term, perhaps it has been abused in recent years or even some time ago, but it's also been effectively used, I think, to make sure that people's rights are intact and that there is a SEPA appeal process for a reason.

And my question really is, is the process here that as we are in the middle of budget, that we're asked to look upon some pretty important legislation that could no doubt affect our Seattle for years to come.

And that shouldn't be taken lightly.

And so I'm trying to get a feel for how long you all have been working on this, how much outreach was in fact done, and whether we should delay this until more outreach is done.

I don't think we have, I don't know how time sensitive this is because we shouldn't have to pit one great need versus another, one great need for affordable housing versus someone's right to even question or challenge some of the decisions we made.

So I'm trying to get a feel for how long we've been working on this and why we're sort of doing this in the middle of budget.

and whether it makes sense to have it done when more process is warranted.

So that's just my personal concerns.

Council Member O'Brien, you are recognized, sir.

Thank you.

I just want to reiterate a couple things that this bill does and doesn't do.

The two major substantive things it does do is it provides categorical exemptions to a slightly longer list of projects that would no longer be required under SEPA.

And I want to be clear that when we ask central staff to analyze recent SEPA appeals in the 30 plus appeals that came through, only two of those would now be categorically exempt based on this legislation.

maybe 5 or 6% of the appeals in recent time frame.

So that's a fairly narrow part of the list.

For the rest of them, what it does do is require a shortened timeline.

And as Council Member Herbold, I think, mentioned, we often see that our own attorneys are agreeing to extend this.

And I think that part of this requirement is to get both sides to accelerate that process.

Multiple times we've heard that attorneys, typically on the client side, have been on vacation for a long time and that required extending it months, sometimes multiple times.

Council President Harreld, to your question about not pitting folks against each other, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to do that.

You know, this process has been going on, I think, for about three months now.

The reason we didn't vote on this before budget, even though it had cleared through committee before budget, was because of some notice requirements.

So it was held for, I think, three weeks.

So I apologize that it's coming up during budget.

But I do believe there's been significant chance for public input.

And I think the reality is here we're going to have to pick where we want to come down.

And I also want to add that it's not just about affordable housing.

It's about bike facilities.

It's about market rate housing, whether those are apartments or backyard cottages.

It's about transportation impact fees, which we're not going to be able to act on in 2019. despite proposing those in 2018 because of multiple delays during the SIPA process.

And I think folks that do have access to the tool are almost always wealthier individuals that can afford attorneys.

Rarely, if ever, do we see low-income communities of color using this tool.

And so it's certainly disproportionately used too, which is, you know, beyond the scope of this legislation.

But I think there's more work we need to do to address that.

Thank you for your comments, Council Member O'Brien.

Any further comments?

Council Member Scate, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I want to take the chance to say thank you to the co-sponsors, Councilmember Pacheco and Councilmember O'Brien.

As you heard, this is a process that has been out there for three months.

It's been an inclusive process, one that we knew was coming, and I completely understand, given the amount of huge pieces of legislation we've taken on this year, how this can feel.

like a big thing to take on prior to budget, but I think the timing is essential.

How many folks have read On Fire?

How many people went to see Naomi Klein?

How many people have been talking about the year 2030?

The fact that when our kiddos are now going to be 11 years old, If they're born this year, then it's going to be too late for us to turn the tide on some of these environmental protections.

All of those issues, I think we have in common in this body and in this city.

We've been talking about how do we address the issue of climate change, and that is precisely why we've been on the forefront of supporting the Green New Deal, making sure that the environmental protections that we have put into place are not being used in unintentional ways, in predatory ways, and as a delay tactic to create the very thing that can help us reduce emissions in this area is to create affordable housing, to create more bike infrastructure, to create more transit infrastructure, and the very tool that we all advocated for once upon a time through the Environmental Protection Act and at the state and the city level, has been used, I think, wrongly to end the ability or to delay the ability to create affordable housing, transit options, multimodal transit corridors that get people out of cars.

And the result of the use of these SEPA provisions has been that less housing is created, a delayed timeline, fewer bike lanes, fewer pedestrian opportunities, It has been weaponized in ways that could never have been intended.

And when we don't allow for affordable housing, and when we don't allow for more bike and pedestrian and infrastructure projects that keep people in the city, that allow for people who have multi-modal needs and who have different incomes to stay in the city and work in the city, retire in the city, the consequence is displacement.

We are now the third largest mega commuter city in the entire country.

That means we are third in terms of the longest commute to get into the city to work.

An hour and a half in, an hour and a half out.

And one of the folks in the audience talked about They care about birds.

They care about trees.

They care about wetlands.

They care about decrease in commuter idling.

They care about water runoff and the mammals that are living out in our Puget Sound.

That is precisely why we should be building within our city.

That is precisely why we should not have tools that are being used erroneously.

When we use the opportunity to make sure that SEPA is used as a tool to promote green living, to promote denser options, to make sure that there's more tree canopy, we can see ourselves actually moving forward on our shared goals of reducing carbon emissions, of promoting more biking and walking, of getting people out of their cars because they live in this city.

I'm really excited about how this piece of legislation dovetails with our broader goal of creating more affordable housing, more transit options, and a more welcoming city.

I just want to say that I think this is also part of our response to how we're dealing with the crisis of climate change globally.

There's about 200 million people on up to 1 billion people who are being forced to migrate because of climate change.

Think about rising sea levels.

Think about desertification.

Think about deforestation.

Think about crazy snowstorms that we've not seen before, and heat and fire.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, yes, we've experienced some of those.

We now have a new season that Naomi Klein writes about, which is smoke season, wildfire season.

And yet here in the Pacific Northwest, we are going to have some of the most temperate climate compared to other parts of the country and frankly other parts of the world.

We have to be a welcoming city and we have to build housing and transit and infrastructure if we are going to be that welcoming city that wants to welcome those who want to come here for a good job, come here for cleaner air, come here for economic stability.

We have to build density and we can't let these tools that have been weaponized in the past prevent the ability for folks to live in the city.

This is an environmental justice policy and I'm proud to support it.

I think that it will be a good opportunity for us to show what it means to be a welcoming city and to live our environmental justice values as well.

Thank you, Council Member Esqueda.

Chance applause on that one.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Harrell.

I will be voting yes on this legislation to alter Seattle's SEPA procedures because these changes will, on balance, be a positive change, but we should be clear that they will not necessarily work in every situation as public testimony has indicated.

As has been mentioned, SEPA, which refers to the State Environmental Protection Act, is nominally a policy intended to protect the environment from particularly destructive development.

In practice, however, it has most often been used by a tool by anyone who wishes to embroil a land use policy or development in red tape.

As a tool, it is imprecise.

It has been used in a progressive direction by community activists who correctly desire to negotiate community benefits or affordable housing out of a large corporate developer.

The threat of a SEPA appeal is the threat of costly delays, which sometimes is enough for community organizations to successfully extract some community benefits.

However, it has far more often been used by some elements to delay affordable housing policies and project.

For example, the Fort Lawton affordable housing project was delayed for years with SEPA appeals, as was the accessory dwelling unit and the detached accessory dwelling unit legislation.

And more recently, the tiny house bill from my office has been subjected to a SEPA appeal by Elizabeth Campbell, who incidentally is the same person who appealed the Fort Lawton project.

To give you a concrete example of how these SEPA appeals have nothing to do with the environment and are only used to slow down legislation, here is one question out of the 11 pages of discovery questions that Elizabeth Campbell has put forward in her SEPA appeal of My Tiny House Bill.

Quote, interrogatory number four, identify every employee of the Office of Housing or the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections who owns property or resides in Seattle.

Not only does that have nothing to do with the environment, it has nothing to do with tiny house villages.

The legislation that we are voting on today restricts SEPA appeal somewhat.

It exempts small buildings from SEPA review, but not big buildings, and it puts some time limits on how long something like my tiny house bill, which actually is a bill that is in the interest of our homeless neighbors, how long such a bill can be delayed by appeals.

When we consider if these changes should be supported, we should not only consider the fact that SEPA is most of the time not being used in the way it was intended, but also consider whether limiting this tool will ultimately do more harm than good based on how it is actually being used, not on the intent of the bill.

I strongly support affordable housing advocates extracting a couple more affordable homes out of a corporate developer using the threat of the SEPA appeal, but I do not support SEPA being used to disrupt and delay progressive legislation like affordable housing on Fort Lauderdale or expanding tiny house villages which actually have a strong track record of addressing housing needs of our homeless neighbors and should be expanded.

I do think we should try and avoid exaggeration of the impact of the bill today, and I think both sides have exaggerated the impact of today's bill on balance.

However, I'm convinced that these changes will do more good than harm.

The reality is to use, as Council Member O'Brien and others have said, to use SEPA to delay policies and projects requires money and financial resources to hire lawyers.

to employ many of the tricks like this 11 pages of discovery questions employ.

Regular people, ordinary people do not have those resources.

Only corporations and wealthy people do.

And because of that, privileged SIPA appeals have been used to delay far more progressive projects and harmful development.

And given that balance, I will be voting yes on these reforms today.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Discussion on the base legislation customer in particular.

Do you like to say more on the base legislation?

You want to go through the amendments?

How'd you like to proceed?

Let's go through the amendments and I can have closing remarks, okay?

So we're gonna take some amendments to the base legislation unless you're any of the comments on the substance of the process So amendment number one is proposed by home.

Is it councilmember Herbold?

particular

Sure, so amendment number one, I just want to thank Council Member Herbold for working with me to improve upon a previous amendment that we had in committee.

This amendment goes further towards ensuring the community is involved in shaping the hearing examiner's improvements and I am happy to support.

Okay, can you say a little more about its substance?

Oh, sorry.

We went through the committee and talked about having in the hearing examiner's annual report that's due next year, additional recommendations that would be provided for the council to the hearing examiner would outline additional recommendations for the council to consider for streamlining that process on the front end.

This amendment just clarifies the stakeholder group by which the hearing examiner is going to convene to come back with those recommendations.

Council Member Herbold, did you want to add anything to that?

Just want to mention that we worked with the hearing examiner on the amendment and he is supportive.

Very good.

Council Member Baxter, you had a question?

Thank you.

Council Member Pacheco, can you describe how a stakeholders group could work with a hearing examiner?

So in particular, the concerns we're hearing today that people feel like their appeal rights are taken away.

How can they continue to participate and make sure that they do have a right to appeal concerns?

And I'm considering particularly downtown Seattle.

because I know many of the voices that are out here that they're focused on that.

How can they participate with this amendment?

Sure, so we met with the hearing examiner last week, and what we heard was that the hearing examiner will be convening a group of stakeholders who have had experience going through the hearing process, expertise in environmental justice, and a representative of the city council.

So my recommendation would be to get in contact with with your city council office, city council member's office with regards to trying to get involved with the hearing examiner, but it would be the hearing examiner will be determining those stakeholders and convening them and going through that process.

So will the individuals who are interested in participating have an opportunity, and you mentioned next April that there will be some additions to this legislation potentially, will they have an opportunity to actually influence what comes out from the hearing examiner

Yes.

And just a little something to add.

I just want to clarify that we made sure to include within the scope of what we ask the hearing examiner to consider with the stakeholder group the changes that we're making today.

Okay.

So for folks who have concerns about what we're doing today, that as well as other issues that have an impact on the timeline and the ability of the hearing examiner to hear appeals that will still be permitted even after today's vote, that is within the scope of this work.

Thank you.

Okay, as I'm understanding, Amendment number one proposed by Councilmember Chayko basically adds a new section 14 and renumbers the remaining sections as presented in amendment one.

He has articulated the motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, any questions before I call on the vote on amendment number one?

All those in favor of amendment number one say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Amendment number one is passed.

Amendment number, yes.

Oh, Council Member Bryan, what did you do?

We didn't hear anything.

Okay.

Council Member Bryan, you're on board.

Amendment number one.

And we're going to move to amendment number two.

I believe Council Member Mosqueda, you were proposing amendment number two?

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I will tee it up and I want to thank Councilmember Pacheco for co-sponsoring this with us and working on the amendment.

This really harmonizes the policy with the comprehensive plan docket amendments that we passed earlier in August of this year with respect to industrial lands.

As you'll remember, the comprehensive plan docket resolution signals the council's support for a work plan and action from the executive on a review of Seattle's industrial lands as the basis for conversations about future industrial lands.

And I'm really interested in how we take these policies and prioritize workers in the industrial sector as well as thinking about how we marry those areas with mixed housing options.

Council Member Bagshaw earlier this morning talked about, you know, how do we have mixed-use housing, preserving industrial lands as we promote affordable housing, potentially for those workers or housing just in general.

And I think it's a really great strategy that we've used in other areas of the city.

So as we look for making sure that we're advancing good living wage jobs, also including housing, mixed-use options, this amendment basically just says, let's have a comprehensive strategy across the city and make sure that we're looking at the entire city in our analysis, not just piecemeal sites for land use changes.

So this harmonizes our effort with the comprehensive plan docket language from August.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm hearing Council Member Mesquite's amendment and basically amends section 10, as I recall.

So she has made the motion, described it, it's been in writing.

I would like to move to amend Council Bill 119600 as presented in Amendment Number 2. Second.

So moved and second.

Any further comments or questions on Amendment Number 2?

All those in favor of Amendment Number 2, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Council Member O'Brien?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Amendment number two has passed.

We have an amendment number three, I believe, as proposed by Councilmember Herbold.

Indeed, thank you.

I move to amend Council Bill 119600 as proposed in amendment three.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Can you describe it a little more?

Absolutely.

So this amendment would direct SDCI to report to council on their draft administrative rules that this legislation requires SDCI to develop.

It requires SDCI not only to report to council the draft administrative rules before they come into effect, but also to convene a stakeholder committee to help them develop the creation of those rules.

And it also, I think there's one other thing it does, it also directs SDCI to publish notice of the adoption of the rules in the Land Use Information Bulletin.

Very good.

Any further comments or explanation or questions on Amendment Number 3?

Council Member Pacheco.

I just want to clarify if Council Member Herbold had a chance to connect with Director Torrelson about this amendment and the second amendment.

I'm uncertain about that.

I've been working through Council Central staff.

This is, it's not unusual to ask STCI to notify us of the content of a director's rule before it goes into effect.

So I don't think it's in conflict with prior practices.

Okay, any other questions?

Questions or comments on amendment number three?

Okay.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor of amendment number three, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Council Member O'Brien?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it, amendment number three passes.

Okay, let's move to our last amendment, which is amendment number four, and I move to ask Council Member Herbold again.

Council Member Pepshaw, thank you.

Thank you.

So this council has done a lot of work to limit parking requirements in urban villages and urban centers, but we haven't done much to address the impacts of developers who build too much parking, particularly downtown.

This amendment would clarify that a project which includes more than 40 parking spaces as non-required parking is subject to SEPA review and appeal.

I passed out two articles.

One was from 2015, where editorial writer Danny Westneat reports that there were 34 projects in the works that included a total of nearly 12,000 parking spaces.

He followed up that report in June of this year, and in that report, it documented that at Mercer at Aurora, which in 2015 was already reported to be at capacity carrying 28,000 cars on an average weekday, was now carrying 38,000 cars daily, 36% more.

State law and city SEPA regulations exempt parking lots with 40 or fewer parking spaces from SEPA review.

Parking lots with more than 40 parking spaces are currently subject to review under SEPA.

SDCI has interpreted the code to exempt required accessory parking and to exempt any parking accessory to development in an urban center where growth estimates have not been exceeded.

So that means under SDCI's interpretation, residential projects that include more parking spaces than they are required to provide may be exempt from SEPA review.

This amendment is intended to make sure that impacts from building more parking then the code requires our study.

Doesn't prohibit them, but it requires a SEPA review.

Our parking policy is intended to encourage non-single occupancy vehicle commutes.

In recent years, parking for the equivalent of six Mariner Stadium garages has been built in Southlake Union alone.

More recently, an employer downtown has put up one of the biggest parking complexes in Seattle with 2,300 parking stalls, twice the parking.

in the six-story parking garage at Pacific Place.

So I'm concerned that this loophole in our SEPA policy makes very likely that people will continue to drive when we're trying to implement parking policy that discourages that.

I move to amend Council Bill 1196-00.

I want to second it and then have some questions.

Okay, so it's it's been moved and seconded.

There's discussions continues.

Council Member Pacheco, I saw your hand go up.

Or Council Member Baxter, did you want to ask questions first?

I'm going to lie the way.

Either way, but here's my concern.

I really like your intention.

And my concern at this point is that having seen it starting at about quarter of one today, I appreciate where you're going.

I'm going to ask whether or not there's some way that this could be reviewed a little bit further.

And I know that's unusual request, but I'd like to know what the impact is.

And I appreciate the Danny Westnede article that you passed, because there really are concerns about I mean, you named the Expedia without saying Expedia.

But that's what we're looking at.

And until light rail comes through in, you know, 3035, people are going to have to figure out alternative ways of getting there and not just make the congestion ridiculous.

So I'm just interested in how this is going to work.

And I'd love to be able to say, let's spend a little bit more time getting analysis from SDCI.

So, I understand how that works.

So, I don't know, I'm not sure how procedurally that this happens to say, I like a lot of the amendments.

I'm concerned about this one just because of the speed with which it came toward.

And I'd like some more thinking on that.

I'd just like to say, for the record, it did, it was sent by the new deadline.

Just, I understand that you did not see it until almost 1 o'clock.

Yeah.

But I just want to say that our standard deadline for once again, once again, the herbal, slipped it in at noon.

I, the chair just sort of recognizes your point that we do have a live amendment that you seconded, as a matter of fact.

That there's some appetite for maybe postponing it, but there might be sufficient votes to vote it up or vote it down as well.

So let's keep that in the back of our minds as we continue our colloquy.

Council Member Pacheco.

Sure.

So I appreciate the amendment.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to vote no on the amendment.

I just, largely, this amendment would have unintended consequences of making far more delays in projects in downtown core to go through the SEPA review process.

Specifically, I had a chance to reach out to Director Torgelson and We received a rough estimate from SCCI that about 4,363 additional units of housing every year would be subject to SEPA delays if this amendment passes.

Between 2012 and 2017, if this amendment had been in effect, 120 additional projects in urban centers would have been subject to CEPA review, meaning that their units would have been delayed.

In that time period, an additional 155 projects in urban villages that would have not been subject to review under the legislation would again be subject to review if this amendment passes.

I agree with the premise that this amendment would like to reduce the number of parking stalls as we are adding, but I think this conversation is just better had in regards to parking maximums rather than as part of the CEPA conversation.

Thank you, Council Member Pacheco for your comments.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Rebuttal.

I just want to make the point that 85% of housing development over the last 10 years has been luxury housing development.

The kinds of housing developments that are providing more parking than is needed under the law are unlikely to be affordable housing projects.

Affordable housing projects are looking to reduce the costs of building housing, both to the low-income housing developer as well as to the tenant.

And so this amendment, I believe, is very unlikely to address and impact those types of projects.

I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow for the public to move towards analyzing these projects for their environmental impacts from the provision of unnecessary parking.

That is something that doesn't exist right now.

And I think it's an important tool that we can use to change public policy as it relates to the over-provision of parking.

We have to balance housing development, housing development for whom, who needs housing development, as well as our needs to impact public policy as it relates to parking development and the use of space for the development of parking.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I have Councilmember O'Brien in queue.

I just have this vibe from the phone that you want to speak.

Is that right, Councilmember O'Brien?

That is correct.

See that?

Amazing.

You have the floor, sir.

Thank you.

I appreciate the intent of this legislation or this amendment, but I will also be voting against it.

I believe, as others have said, that The amount of parking we're building in many neighborhoods is too much, and we should address that.

But I don't think that that should be through a SEPA appeal process where the hearing examiner decides.

Rather, I think we should revisit our parking maximums where we have them and perhaps consider lowering them.

And where we don't have parking maximums, consider setting them.

And I think that's a specific policy that the council should take up.

I think it's appropriate and consistent with our environmental rules, but I don't think this should be up to whoever has money to appeal to make a decision.

I think there's an important policy decision that the council should weigh in with the mayor and set some specific targets.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You came in loudly and clearly.

We still have an amendment on the table.

Would anyone else like to express any opinions or ask any questions before we vote on it?

I think we have sufficient information.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to make any closing comments on your proposal?

Everyone ready to vote?

Okay, so amendment number four, dealing with the parking spaces issue as described by Council Member Herbold, has been moved and seconded.

All those in favor of the amendment, raise your hand and say aye.

I'll vote for you.

I'm not gonna leave my sister hanging there.

I'll get on that one.

Got two ayes there, Council Member O'Brien.

All those in favor.

Thank you.

All those opposed say no.

No.

No.

No.

Okay, the amendment fails.

Okay, so now we have an amended piece of legislation that had three amendments that did pass.

And we're going to vote on that in a minute.

I want to make sure that everyone has a chance to say anything they like to about the amended base legislation.

Council Member Pacheco.

Sure, again I just want to express my gratitude to Council Member O'Brien for co-sponsoring this legislation with me.

Council Member Herbold and Council Member Mosqueda as well for working with me on some of the amendments.

As I kind of heard a lot of public comment both through this process and committee as well as here today and in the public hearing, Very often I heard about the desire to have the next council, the next council, the next council, and as many of us have heard week after week, just, you know, don't, you know, this council should just wait for the next council.

I am appreciative of the fact that we've all been working and continuing to do our jobs, but also, mindful of just the urgent need of not just housing and environmental stewardship, and so that's the value system by which we've acted upon today and I will be voting on today.

From a personal experience, you know, I heard just when I've heard stories of both the ADU legislation being delayed, for Lawton being delayed, MHA.

For those that have used that process, the SEPA process, to delay projects for affordable housing, those have very real consequences.

And it's not until you have to look your mother in the eye and you have to struggle with her to help her find affordable housing do you realize that there's a price to be paid and those that have to pay it are the closest to you.

That's something that I kept in mind as I kind of went through this process and why we needed to reform it.

Because those affordable housing projects that are delayed have consequences.

Those are consequences that are paid by those that are most vulnerable in our community.

And for me, it happens to be my parents.

And so, I thank my colleagues on this council for helping me through this process, as well as hopefully voting in support of this legislation in a few minutes.

Thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

Any other comments or questions?

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I just want to speak to some of the things that I've heard from members of the public.

I am concerned that people who I believe are well-meaning and who do care about their community and their environment and are not folks who are weaponizing the SEPA process, have significant concerns about this bill.

I think, you know, these were characterized early on as common sense SEPA reforms.

I think when so many people, again, who I feel have really legitimate concerns.

We have not been able to use this this process to assuage those concerns.

I would suggest that they perhaps are not common-sense concerns in that the dialogue around this legislation would benefit from more more engagement with the public.

That said, I have asked central staff to do sort of a deep dive.

One of the things that I heard from a lot of folks is that SIPA results in really positive outcomes for the city and the community.

Some of those outcomes include better projects.

It includes putting the city in a better position to defend its own projects if it goes through that SEPA review first.

And central staff did a review of the 54 cases that were either amended or remanded over the last 10 years.

An example of one of those cases is the Escala Tower, which we hear about, where the hearing examiner amended the SEPA determination on late impacts on adjacent buildings.

and loading dock management.

It appears that of the cases that were 25% of 54 cases that were reviewed that were amended or remanded to the hearing examiner, none of those cases that were actually resulted in positive impacts through the appeal process.

would be exempted from appeal in this legislation.

So that's the good news.

I do remain concerned about the project action and non-project actions that may not be appealable under this legislation.

So over seven years of appeals, central staff analysis showed that two of a total of 32 project actions or development proposals appealed would not have been required to undertake SEPA under this new legislation.

But in both of those cases, the hearing examiner ruled in the city's favor as it related to SEPA issues, not in the appellant's favor.

So though in one of those cases, the appellants won their case on the basis of the land use code interpretation, not the city issues, not the SEPA issues.

So that was on the project actions.

On over seven years of appeals of the non-project actions, central staff analysis showed that four of a total of 22 non-project actions would possibly be subject to a waiver of appeals under this law.

In one of those four cases, it could still be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board on other grounds.

So I bring this as a little bit of context and texture on a review of the last seven in one case, seven years and 10 years in another case to basically echo Council Member Sawant's statement earlier that I think a lot of folks have on both sides have over promised what this legislation will require.

I don't think it's going to so limit SEPA appeals as some people fear and I don't think it's going to so eliminate SEPA appeals as some other people are hoping.

And so just a couple other issues I want to comment on that I've heard from members of the public.

Many constituents have reached out to me concerned about the lack of ability to use SEPA appeal for economic issues.

It's important to remember that this legislation will still include economic issues in SEPA review and analysis.

but not allow for their appeal.

This goes beyond what the state already requires.

The state does not require the use of SEPA review on economic issues.

That is something that the city of Seattle has chosen to do even though the state does not require it.

And then lastly, some folks have been writing recently concerned that SDCI, inappropriately and in conflict with state law, doesn't follow the code when it comes to the timeline of SEPA consideration.

SDCI publishes its environmental review in combination with its decision on the permits.

And some people have suggested that that is in conflict with the requirement of SDCI to publish its environmental review at the earliest possible moment.

It's actually the city's practice means that a determination of non-significance is published with the master use permit.

And that is a decision that relies on the Design Review Board's final decision.

And so the city legally must wait until the Design Review Board acts before publishing a determination of non-significance.

So the concern that we're dragging out the design review determination of significance in the analysis on the SEPA process until the last possible moment and that's why we're getting all these decisions in favor of appellants from the hearing examiner and that that is somehow in conflict with state law is actually not true because state law requires that those things be done together.

So, just trying to, it would have been better if we had been able to use the process, I think, to dispel a lot of the, create a frequently asked questions document or something to dispel some of the myths about this legislation.

So, thank you for indulging me in going through some of this stuff right now.

Can we put an FAQ together now?

I think that would be a great thing to do.

Yeah.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Any questions or comments?

Councilmember O'Brien, any closing comments?

None for me.

Okay.

So with that, I'll just sort of say that thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those comments.

And I want to thank Lish Whitson and central staff for the viewing public.

We sort of have a impartial agnostic researchers and analysts to just sort of look at the issues and the facts and they give us the facts on prior appeals and that was very helpful.

I take any appeal process very seriously and even when we have seen, I guess you're calling it weaponized or abused is a good word, the process abused, anyone's right to appeal, I take very seriously.

I guess as an attorney and someone who's litigated and managed against the city, I just take it very seriously.

I'm convinced that these are reasonable changes and that we've looked at these from a variety of perspectives and the amendments and all still make good sense to me.

So I will be supporting it as well.

Okay, having said that, please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.

but Jacob I so want I make sure I her bold I whereas I will scatter I O'Brien I president Harrell I aid in favor none opposed bill passes the chair will sign it please

Please read the next agenda item and I'll say a few words about when we get to there.

I'm gonna sign off.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you customer Brian So before the clerk reads the next agenda item as provided under RCW 42.17A.555 will now consider the adoption of Resolution 319-11.

And that the conclusion of the council member comments, we will hear from comments from the public who wish to speak on the resolution.

And the requirement is that we give an approximate equal opportunities to speak on either side of the issue.

And that's what we will do.

And having said that will the clerk please read agenda item number two into the record.

The report of the City Council agenda item two resolution 31911 opposing Washington initiative measure 976 and urging Seattle voters to vote no on I-976 on the November 5th 2019 general election ballot.

Okay, so what I'm going to do before I turn the mic over to Councilmember Juarez, I'm going to actually move it and second it, and then we'll hear from Councilmember Juarez while it's a live resolution.

Okay, so I'll move to adopt Resolution 31911. It's been moved and seconded.

Councilmember Juarez, will you please present the argument?

Yes, I will.

Thank you.

I was under the impression that we're doing public comment first, but that's fine.

I think we'll hear from the council members first.

Okay, then I'm fine.

I'm sorry.

I'm looking at we could do it either way Just one sec.

No, it's okay.

I can do it.

I just was told the opposite, but that's fine.

Well, just one right No, I think we're gonna go council members first, oh, thank you age before beauty So, thank you council president or did we read it into the record I

It's been read into the record and it's been moved and seconded, so you could just present it.

You won't have to move it.

Just tell us why you think this is good policy for us to adopt.

All right, I will.

So this was on the introduction referral calendar September 30th, and you should all have a copy of, I think you got it last week, a copy of the resolution, Resolution 31911. So thank you, Council President.

Resolution 31911 urges Seattle voters to vote no on Initiative 976 and outlines the reasons why.

If this initiative passes, it will cripple our transportation system and threaten statewide transportation investments, including, but not limited to, connected Washington, local transportation benefit districts, sound transit, ferries, rail, and freight, mobility, transit options, and public safety.

Our region has grown exponentially, and all municipalities, large and small, are working hard to keep up with the demands of population growth, particularly transportation, particularly in King County and particularly in the City of Seattle.

Statewide transportation improvements have been hard-fought and are the result of great partisan work at the state and here in our tri-county region, Pierce, King, and Snohomish.

For example, Sound Transit is a voter-approved, voter-accountable authority that provides multimodal transit options across Snohomish, King, and Pierce County.

The people have voted affirmatively to invest in transportation, yet this initiative is framed as a money saver by returning to a $30 car tax, quote, unquote.

It would, in fact, reverse the will of the people, increase congestion, delay construction projects, and put $4 billion of state funding at risk.

In addition, this initiative targets public funds that pay for services for seniors, veterans, children, and the disabled, our most vulnerable.

I-96 is on the ballot for the general election in November, and I urge Seattle voters and my colleagues to join me in voting no on this harmful initiative.

Mr. President, at this time, I would like an opportunity to read a few of the whereases into the record.

Please do, Council Member Juarez.

There are, as you know, it's a four-page resolution.

There are 11 very important key and critical whereases.

However, there are four that I want to read into the record for the viewing public.

Number one, whereas the Washington Initiative Measure 976, hereinafter I-976, would undermine progress made by the City of Seattle, Sound Transit, and the State of Washington in building a more equitable and sustainable transportation system that responds to the challenges posed by the region's extraordinary growth, an ongoing climate crisis, and past failures to build a mass transit system that could efficiently and cost-effectively serve the needs of Seattle in the 21st century by eliminating major funding sources for light rail expansion, bus services in Seattle, and the primary sources of non-highway spending at the state level, and whereas I-976 would repeal funding authority for all or substantial portions of transportation benefit districts in Seattle and 61 other cities across Washington State.

a sum of $60 million per year that is largely dedicated to improving safety and maintaining infrastructure and, as in Seattle, to reducing crowding and expanding access to the bus service.

Third, whereas I-976 would also eliminate or reduce funding now dedicated to low-income transit access and ORCA passes to all Seattle Public High School students, Seattle Promise Scholars, and income-eligible middle school students, and whereas I-976 is intended to eliminate $20 billion in funding for expansion of Light Rail to West Seattle and Ballard, along other elements of the 2016 voter-approved Sound Transit 3 measure.

As I shared council president there are 11 whereas as I pulled four in particular that I thought were very Important not only for my colleagues and the public but certainly the viewing public as such I would hope and I moved that Seattle City Council pass resolution number three one nine one one.

Thank you.

Thank you customer wars when any of our colleagues like the opportunity to speak on this what I am checking now is we're gonna hear public comment and for members of the public, I'm checking to see if it's appropriate that council members could speak after public comment.

Is that what you would prefer?

I'm flexible either way, but I don't even know if the rules allow us to do that, because typically we hear from the dais and then the public and then we vote.

So I had some requests to do it a little differently.

But right now would be a great time while I'm getting a ruling to hear from one of our colleagues.

So Council Member Herbold, would you like to say a few words?

Thank you.

As Council Member Juarez noted, the Transportation Benefit District provides 350,000 hours of service.

a lot of hours of service that has resulted in Seattle being one of the only cities in the nation that has actually seen an increase in transit use.

In the regional transit committee meeting last month, I'm a member of that regional committee, King County staff indicated that Seattle could lose up to 175,000 hours of bus service in 2020. That's half of the service funded by the voter-approved Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

One-third of the sea line service is provided through the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

And I-976 would, of course, harm funding for light rail projects, including West Seattle and Ballard Lines.

So, really appreciate bringing this resolution forward.

It's critically important for our transit needs here in Seattle.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Swann, would you be okay to say a few words now, and then we'll hear from the public unless the other council members want to speak, and you'd like to say something, and we'll hear from Council Member Baxter as well.

So, Council Member Swann.

Thank you, President Harrell.

I will, needless to say, be voting yes on this resolution, which strongly urges Washington state voters to vote no on Tim Eyman's initiative 976. Not only would 976, if passed, reduce or eliminate funding for public transit at a time when we have to greatly accelerate our measures to address a climate crisis, it would make the existing measures more regressive.

It's absolutely unconscionable.

But we also have to make a note that the reason Tim Eyman and the right wing keep getting an echo in our state is because of our broken tax system where it is the nation's most regressive tax system.

So in addition to opposing such regressive measures like represented by 976, we need strong leadership to fight for progressive revenue sources like, for example, the Trump Proof Seattle Coalition which fought for the high earners income tax and Council Member Herbold and I co-sponsored that legislation, which has now cleared its first hurdle in court and is on its way, hopefully, to clear its second hurdle.

So we need progressive measure, revenue measures like that to stop the right wing from getting an echo for regressive measures.

But in the meanwhile, it is absolutely critical that the state's voters reject 976.

Thank you Councilmember Swann.

Councilmember Bekshaw.

Great and thank you colleagues.

I certainly am going to support what you're arguing for but I also want to say thank you to our legislature and thanks in no small part to our eastern Washington legislators.

Oftentimes I think we find ourselves on opposite sides of various arguments but in the transportation world we all agree and we Have supported legislation to improve state highways I believe that every single county in Washington has received benefits fixing their highways Through previous work that the legislature has done.

I want to acknowledge Senator Curtis King as an example of someone a Republican from Yakima that I can work with and to help reduce congestion here and also to support the highways for his constituents on the eastern side of the mountains.

Voters in our city want more bus service and we have frequently and repeatedly voted for levies that support that and I recognize that What would happen if I-976 passed is that many of the funds that are used for very important things that we all support, such as paying for ORCA cards for seniors, recently for our high school students, for seniors and veterans, and I would very strongly consider that to be in opposition to what we are doing here in the city to try to make transportation available and affordable for all.

Thank you, Councilmember Benshaw.

Council Member Pacheco.

I'll just be brief.

I just want to say that I will be supporting this resolution and applaud Council Member Juarez for all of her work doing this.

I just want to really echo something that I've heard consistently through Vision 2050 about our region growing with 1.2 million new jobs and 1.8 million new residents.

Expected in the next 30 years.

We know we need investments in our infrastructure to keep all of us moving So I will be supporting this Resolution and would like to go on the record as saying as I think that initiative 976 is malarkey

Okay, thank you for that, Councilmember Pacheco.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks to Councilmember Juarez for bringing this forward.

I think it bears repeating what Councilmember Sawant mentioned.

Many folks who are struggling are clearly concerned about the cost of their car tabs, and that is the result of our upside-down tax system.

So as we work to support initiative, 976, we also in the same breath call for us to right-side up our upside-down tax system.

We have to have revenue to invest in transportation.

We have to have revenue to invest in our crumbling bridges.

We have to have this revenue to make sure that our economy functions.

We are talking about a transportation system that allows for goods to get to the only deep water port in the western states here.

We're talking about a major hub of transit and infrastructure that relies on us to have good functioning roads.

Well, we have to pay for that somehow.

We have to make sure that small businesses and large businesses have the ability for workers to commute to get there because we haven't built the housing that we need and we need that transportation infrastructure system.

In order for us to do that, we need to rely on this revenue that Initiative 976 helps and, sorry, that Initiative 976 will take away from us if we see this pass.

So we must oppose Initiative 976. I want to underscore something that Council Member Bagshaw also mentioned.

This is not just about threatening our roads and our bridges.

It's about taking away the very fabric of the system that helped provide services to seniors, veterans, and children, and the disabled.

So I encourage folks to continue their effort to get the word out.

Know on 976, that's what this council is advocating for today, to get information out about what is really critical, and that is clarity and not confusion that's been propagated by Tim Eyman yet again.

Thank you to Council Member Juarez for continuing to underscore our commitment to get the word out to voters to vote no on Initiative 976.

Thank you Council Member Esqueda.

Any further comments from any of our colleagues from the dais?

Okay, so that concludes comments from council members and will now provide an equal opportunity to hear comments from members of the public who wish to speak on the resolution.

The total time allotted for comments will be 20 minutes, and speakers will be called in alternating order between the two public comment sections, either for or against the resolution.

Because we have one sign-up in opposition to the resolution and five sign-up in support, I'm going to start off with the opposition, which is Mr. Eyman, and then I'll go to the support, which will be Matthew Lang, and then I will likely continue to hear the support and then give Mr. Iman on the back end equal amount of time because we could just go two minutes, two minutes, two minutes, but that'd be, that'd have Mr. Iman come up five times.

And so that doesn't make a lot of sense.

So Mr. Iman, why don't we start with you for two minutes, but then you will be called back after that, after we hear from the support, supporters of the resolution.

Mr. Iman, you have the floor, sir.

Well, thank you very much.

This is a government resolution telling voters how to vote on a citizen initiative.

It is an arrogant, improper use of tax dollars.

Voters do not like politicians telling them how they should vote.

This hasn't been a public hearing.

This has been a politician hearing.

This kind of manipulation, however, does not work with the initiative process.

Everybody in the state gets to vote on it.

You guys can rant and rave all you want.

It doesn't really matter.

Your vote counts exactly the same as every other voter in the state of Washington, so that's fine.

And it doesn't surprise me that there is a poll out that shows that this is passing 70% across the state, and it's leading in Seattle 52 to 48. Those 52% of Seattle voters that are in favor of this measure aren't doing it because they like me.

They find that it's completely dishonest to be taxing people on a $10,000 car and taxing it as if it's worth $25,000.

And the tax burden, even for the people in Seattle, is absolutely reaching a tipping point where even they are realizing their property taxes are going through the roof.

Every other tax is going through the roof.

They're struggling.

They're having a tough time.

And this initiative comes along when the legislature had for two and a half years a way to be able to fix this problem.

To say that a $10,000 car is worth $10,000 for taxation purposes, they didn't do that.

For two and a half years, voters have been saying, do something about this problem, and they've done nothing.

When this initiative qualified in January, they had an entire legislative session to fix the problem, and they didn't.

They could have put an alternative on the ballot.

They didn't do that either.

They've done absolutely nothing.

And why is it that we believe that by voting this initiative down and keeping a dishonest tax in law, that somehow they're going to turn around and start fixing it now?

People are getting ripped off.

Everybody knows it.

And the politicians aren't doing a thing about it.

And this initiative is the only way that people can actually fix the problem, get rid of this dishonest tax, and come up with a better system, one where it requires voter approval and one where they have to actually tax a $10,000 vehicle like it's worth $10,000.

On the support side, Matthew Lang.

You have two minutes, sir.

And then for Matthew, we'll go to Kelsey Mesher.

Actually, so my name is Matthew Lang, and I'm the lead organizer at the Transit Riders Union and a proud member of the No. 976 coalition.

The coalition has decided that I will actually be the only one that is going up to speak today.

So if there's any objection, I'm sure that they will bring it up.

I've been on this campaign trail for about a year now, testified at Olympia, been working really closely to make sure that this initiative fails because it is going to be extremely harmful to all people in Washington State.

A bus, bike, pedestrian, rail, and other multimodal cuts in our city will be extremely harmful to the members of the Transit Riders Union that use all those modes of transportation.

Workers are going to suffer because of this initiative.

Thousands of jobs in the construction industry are going to be cut as we stop building roads, as we stop fixing potholes.

Throughout the state, I've been hearing that entire counties might have to cut their entire bus systems because they rely so heavily on the transit benefit districts.

TRU supports the leadership of the council in this and wants to make sure that we keep our Orchid Opportunity Programs for youth, seniors, and veterans, that we keep our Transportation Equity Program, which is developing an equity analysis to bring transit to traditionally underserved populations.

Currently, 53% of all carbon emissions in our city are coming from passenger vehicles or cars and trucks.

Allowing any cuts to services, to bus service, would be in direct opposition to our stated emissions and commute trip reduction goals.

So in that vein, the Transit Riders Union and the No 976 Coalition support the leadership of the Seattle City Council in denouncing I-976.

Please vote yes on Resolution 31911. Thank you.

I'll call the names since I have them here.

Kelsey Mesher, would you like to speak?

And Drew Johnston, would you like to speak?

Drew not here.

Steve Zemke, would you like to speak?

No, vote no on 976.

And Brown, Rachel Brown, would you like to speak?

Rachel?

Okay, and I think Joyce Lemonhead was here, but she signed up for another area.

So the way I sort of poorly described the the sequence of events, because I probably put the opposition side at a disadvantage, because I was assuming that all of you would speak since you all signed up.

So I think it appropriate to give Mr. Eyman another minute.

And if you want to see another minute, and then we're going to close public comment.

Would you like to say another minute, Mr. Eyman?

told you that you would have more time, assuming that the other side was going to speak longer, and that was a little unfair to your side.

Without chewing on my time, I really appreciate, Bruce, you laying out the rules and letting me know how it was going to work.

I'm very grateful for that.

I think that just the basic point I'd want to make is if it was a private company that was gouging people like this, taking more money than they're really entitled to, the government would shut them down.

But because it's the government itself taking more money than there should from the taxpayers, all we're getting is excuses.

You're saying it doesn't matter whether or not it's dishonest.

It doesn't matter if it's artificially inflated because we're spending the money that we shouldn't be taking from you on really good stuff.

And what we're dealing with is we have a state that has a $3.5 billion tax surplus, which is more than enough money to backfill any affected government program, get rid of the dishonest tax, use the surplus in order to be able to backfill the affected programs, and transition to a system that is a heck of a lot more fair, that under 976 they have to get voter approval and they have to use Kelley Blue Book or the actual value of a vehicle.

So that if a $10,000 car is going to be taxed, it's going to be taxed at $10,000.

That seems reasonable to me.

What I find just inconceivable, and I'm out of time, is that you can't recognize the fact that people are extremely upset about this and they're very upset because their elected officials aren't telling them and acknowledging that it's a problem.

Instead, you're saying, just take it because we're using the money on really good stuff.

And I think most people think if it's dishonest, you shouldn't be imposing it all regardless of what you spend the money on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hyman.

Would the supporters of the resolution like one last bite of the apple here?

I've just got one more thing to say.

So I just bought a 2019 car, and I'm going to have to pay about $450 this year in my car tabs.

And I'm OK with that, because I have the privilege to be able to do that.

And I understand that access to transportation is one of the biggest markers for poverty in the country.

If you don't have access to transportation, you can't get to work.

You can't get around the city.

We have to be able to provide these opportunities for all people in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to close the public comment section.

We've had ample comments from the dais, and so I'm going to prepare this matter for a vote.

Just one moment here.

Just a moment, please.

My colleague's accusing me of stealing his papers.

Okay.

All those in favor of supporting resolution 31911, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The resolution has passed and the chair will sign it.

Please read the next agenda item into the record.

Agenda item 3, Council Bill 119288, relating to the city's criminal code.

Council Member

Thank you.

So the mayor's office is continuing to coordinate ongoing community outreach.

I have reminded the mayor's office of the May 14th letter that the mayor wrote to us urging us to quickly consider and pass Council Bill 1192-88, the proposed hate crimes law.

From some of the initial conversations that the mayor's office has been convening, there may be some related work that ties in with our budget.

And so consequently, I am moving to hold Council Bill 1192.88 to the full Council meeting on Monday, November 25th.

So just one sec.

So there's been a motion to hold this agenda item till November 25th.

Correct.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Any comments on the hold till November 25th?

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it and this matter be held till November 25th.

Is there any further business coming for the council?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I would like to move, to be excused, beginning next Monday, October 14th through January 27th of 2020 for parental leave.

This includes 12 weeks of parental leave and the two weeks of the council recess.

And looking forward to joining you all again in January.

I second that motion.

I'm not sure I could legislate something till next year.

Maybe I could just ask for it to leave through the end of this year.

Why don't I do that?

I think this is a new one here.

This is history in the making.

Yes.

So I will just one second.

Pull up my schedule.

December 16th is our last meeting.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna do it till December 16th to can I Okay, so I could do it all the way till January 27 Okay Okay

Mr. President, it was more of an announcement, apparently, that I'd like to make the council aware that I will be taking leave unapologetically.

We'll let the record reflect the fact that Council Member Scudas appropriately asked for leave for absence for her leave and we all agree and we'll work through the logistics offline.

And I just want to say I wish all our colleagues the best of luck this fall.

And to folks who are not coming back, it was a true honor to work with you.

So thank you very much for all the work that you've done in our tenure together, in the two years of my tenure together with you.

And do wish you all the best of luck and I'll be back.

Everything goes correctly for potentially a budget vote or two in mid to end November.

Council Member Baxter.

Thank you.

And you know, Council Member Venditti, it's been my pleasure working with you as well over the last couple of years, and I will reach out to you, and when you are prepared, I will send you a message saying, call me back when the baby's asleep, so we can talk about where we're going with this budget, and I appreciate your staff giving us your priorities and getting in your first Form A's, and you won't be out of the loop very far.

In advance and thanks to the council colleagues for allowing me to be so vocal in the last few weeks as we've been talking about possible priorities I wanted to make sure everybody knew the various priorities before heading out on family leave and No guarantees about being able to come back, but appreciate that the council rules were amended in December 2017 so that the assumption would be made that if anybody wanted to use the call-in option During any family leave they had the ability to do so so we'll let you know as soon as possible and otherwise I look forward to seeing you soon.

Thank you Councilmember Mosqueda.

And with that we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day.