Transportation, Waterfront, and Seattle Center Committee 9/17/2026

All right, good morning.

The September 17th, 2026 meeting of the Transportation Waterfront in Seattle Center Committee, informally known as STEPS, will come to order.

It is 9.35 a.m.

I am Rob Saka, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Foster?

Here.

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Councilmember Lin?

Vice Chair Rinke?

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are three members present.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Rink and Council Member Lin are excused until they arrive.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is hereby adopted.

All right.

Good morning, colleagues, members of the public.

Thank you for being here today.

Today marks our third committee discussion on the Seattle Safer Streets Act and the culmination of many months of work.

When we created this committee in January, we deliberately put safety first in steps.

That wasn't branding.

It was a commitment.

whether you walk, bike, roll, drive, take transit, or deliver goods and services, you deserve to get where you're going safely.

And on top of that, we know that Seattle launched its ambitious Vision Zero goal more than a decade ago.

But our trajectory tells us something important.

Aspiration alone is not implementation.

and a goal without accountable systems and structures institutionalized throughout all aspect of policy to deliver it, simply not enough.

That's why we've held quarterly safety conversations, why I personally requested a Vision Zero performance audit and why we've developed, debated and refined legislation before us today.

Now, I recognize this process has occasionally gotten a little spicy.

That's okay.

This is the Seattle City Council.

If nine people agreed on everything every time, probably want to get law or HR involved.

But in all seriousness, I do want to thank my colleagues for asking hard questions, proposing thoughtful amendments to improve the base legislation.

This legislation has changed and evolved, and I'm grateful for their engagement.

Good debate should improve policy and legislation, but eventually deliberation has to become a decision.

And the reason for urgency is written, not in an executive order or even our Seattle municipal code.

It's written in lives.

Steve Holzman was killed while biking in West Seattle in 2023. Christian Salyer died while biking on Capitol Hill in June.

Two short weeks later, Meredith Bonadilla was killed while biking in Fauntleroy.

Their families don't experience these tragedies as simple statistics.

Neither should we.

I'd like us to observe a moment of silence for Steve, Christian, Meredith and everyone lost on Seattle streets.

Thank you.

The Federal Safe Systems approach recognizes that people make mistakes.

Our shared responsibility is to build a system where those mistakes are less likely to become death sentences.

And Hoboken, New Jersey shows what systematic action can accomplish.

It didn't find one magical project.

It systematically improved its streets and has become a national model for Vision Zero achievement.

Safer streets aren't created by one perfect project.

They're created by making safety routine, intentional, and durable.

That's exactly what Safer seeks to do.

It strengthens safety-focused project reviews, expands the authority of traffic safety leadership, advances safer large truck practices, and establishes a fatal crash response baseline while moving towards even faster action.

This package has been developed as a first of its kind set of legislation designed to embed traffic safety more deeply into city operations.

Hoboken has set a national standard for results.

Through SAFER, Seattle is working to become a national leader too.

And we're doing so by asking a larger, more strategic question.

How do we make safety an institutionalized part?

of how we govern ourselves at City Hall.

And this hasn't happened inside a vacuum here at City Hall either.

We've heard strong support from labor, street safety advocates, community members, experts, and families directly impacted by traffic violence, including Rita Holzman, the widow of Steve.

Last night, that coalition grew even stronger.

The MLK Labor Council, representing tens of thousands of workers, unanimously endorsed safer as a bold investment in good union jobs, ADA accessibility, and the safety and well-being of Seattle's working people.

Traffic safety doesn't belong to one neighborhood, one mode, or even one constituency.

Safe streets are common ground.

For clarity, no ordinance can eliminate every risk.

but that cannot become an excuse for inaction.

Leadership changes, priorities change, administrations change, but a lifesaving practice shouldn't depend on who happens to occupy a particular office.

That's why legislation matters and that's why council leadership matters.

We cannot legislate away every single tragedy.

but we can legislate what government does about the risks we already understand.

Today, after months of work, we have decisions to make, colleagues, and it's time to act.

Importantly, our final agenda item begins consideration of the mayor's proposed nominee to lead the Seattle Center, Interim Director Randy Engstrom.

From safer transportation to strong civic and cultural spaces, This committee is ultimately about building a Seattle where people can move, gather, and thrive safely.

Let's get to work.

We will now open the public comment period, the hybrid public comment period.

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

Clerk comedy speakers are signed up today.

Chair, we currently have 23 in-person speakers and 17 remote speakers.

All right.

Our council rules specify that if there are 20 or more speakers, each person will have approximately one minute.

So therefore each speaker will have approximately one minute.

We will start with the in-person speakers first.

Clerk, could you please read the public comment instructions?

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

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

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

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

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

After Conrad, we will hear from Heather Peel.

Mr. Steinbrook, welcome.

Before we begin your testimony, I'll let the record reflect that Vice Chair Rink and Council Member Lent have joined us.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Hey, good morning, you guys.

Thanks for having me.

Speaking to the mic, director.

Good morning, you guys.

Thanks for having me.

I'm Conrad Steinbrook, and I'm requesting that the council not pass 121296, Amendment 16. I live in Pioneer Square.

I work in the Pike Place Market.

I also represent the Merchants' Association of Pike Place Market as well.

We're talking about some of the most beautiful parts of Seattle, these historic districts.

My brother just opened up a restaurant over in Ballard as well.

Really special spots.

I think that the process that has led to the preservation and creation and development of some of the most beautiful parts of the city is through process, it's through discourse, and it's through friction.

I think that as a merchant in Pike Place Market, the MHC has caused so much frustration.

challenges, but at the end of the day, having the friction allows for better processes to come to be, and I don't want that in one organization's hands.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And friendly reminder, folks, when you hear that chime, that means you have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Heather Peel after Heather Christopher Green.

Hi, I'm Heather Peel and I staffed the Ballard Avenue Landmark District Board and the Pike Place Market Historical Commission from 2003 to 2019 for 16 years.

And I was coordinating 19 volunteers that made decisions over design changes in those districts.

And the traffic safety engineer was a critical resource for information and how to interpret data.

So for example, in Pike Place Market, when there was a plan or a concept to put forward a traffic light, The traffic engineer came and provided 10 years of data to the Market Historical Commission and said, actually, this isn't needed here.

It's better that it's just stop signs.

So I am asking the committee members to vote no on Amendment 16, Council Bill 121296. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Christopher Green.

After Christopher, we'll hear from Eric Piehl.

I have no clue where I'm going.

Sir, you will have two minutes for our accommodation.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Chris Green, and I am the grant program manager with Historic South Downtown.

We serve Pioneer Square and the Chinatown International District, advocating for our neighbors and investing in projects that strengthen and preserve these communities.

Historic South Downtown opposes Council Bill 121296, specifically Amendment 16. We strongly support safer streets, especially for pedestrians and other vulnerable users.

I recommend, or excuse me, recognize I am one of those.

but public safety and historic preservation should not be treated as competing priorities.

The proposal to exempt traffic control projects from historic preservation review removes an important layer of community oversight.

Preservation review is one of the few public forums where neighbors can see proposed changes, comment on them, and bring their daily knowledge of these districts into the process.

SDOT already works within permitting requirements.

It should also be able to coordinate with historic preservation review.

If the current process is too slow, the answer should be better coordination between departments, not eliminating review.

SDOT and the Department of Neighborhoods could create...

Excuse me, I'm reading back, so it's hard.

We are asking the council to preserve that principle.

make our streets safer, make the review process work better, but do it without removing the few opportunities that communities have to shape what happens in their own neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Eric Peel.

After Eric, we'll hear from Mark Childs.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Eric Peel and I live and work in the City of Seattle.

I'm speaking against Amendment 16 to Council Bill 12196. 1-2-1-2-9-6.

Traffic safety and historic preservation are not mutually exclusive as the previous speakers mentioned.

They are both important.

In fact, they are distinct disciplines requiring specialized knowledge, skills and experience and expertise.

The goals of both can best be accomplished as they are currently through collaboration.

We do not need to change a process that is working.

Are there conflicts?

Yes, there are, just as there was most recently in Pioneer Square.

But in my experience, debate can produce better outcomes.

And in general, conflicts have been few and far between over the last half century.

Each of our historic districts is unique and tells an important and culturally specific story about Seattle.

no one department can be assigned or one person in a department can actively represent the same thing that our committees and commissions do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Mark Childs, followed by Rachel Leitenberg.

Thank you, commissioners and council members.

I'm a professor emeritus of architecture and design.

I've published six award-winning books on urban design.

I'm also a commissioner of the Pike Place Historic Commission, although I'm speaking for myself.

I have three points.

Initiative-created historic districts are different than legislative historic districts.

They have different legal structures and different roles.

And it's unfortunate they often get lumped together.

Second of all, the definition of traffic control devices sounds clear but is not clear.

Are the rumbling streets in Pike Place Market traffic control devices?

They were intended that way.

So what actually is that definition?

And second of all, I'm sorry, finally, there's a difference in between design and use, and this Amendment 16 does not make that clear.

So the sign that says 30 miles an hour or 50 miles an hour is...

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Rachel Leitenberg followed by Elaine Spencer.

Good morning.

Rachel Lichtenberg, President and CEO of Pike Place Market.

First and foremost, the market supports the city's commitment to safety.

Thank you for your work here.

PDA is not opposed to traffic safety improvements.

We want to be sure that we're partnered in achieving them.

MHC was established when the market was saved to preserve the market forever, and this process exists because Seattle made a deliberate decision that changes in that particular space requires a specialized consideration.

Our recent work on Pike Place the Street has shown that this partnership between PDA, MHC, Police, Fire, SDOT can be successful.

We have had all changes reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and worked within those requirements.

Our concern is fundamentally about process transparency and appropriate consultation.

We request to provide the PDA and MHC with a clear explanation on the problem that the amendment is intended to solve, explain how the proposed authority interacts with the existing market historic commission, and engage with the PDA.

Our next speaker is Elaine Spencer, followed by Shelly Morrison.

I moved to Seattle in 1976, and since 1977 have lived at 1419 Madrona Drive.

Proposed Amendment 16 makes me feel very old.

I remember when Seattle treasured its historic districts, not just Pike Place Market and Piney Square, but Ballard, Harvard, Belmont, As we realized that we were becoming an international city and risked losing our character to generic development, we protected those districts.

The city also respected its citizens' involvement in preserving the neighborhoods.

It valued the unique insights, passion, and commitment of citizen review boards.

I understand why SDOT officials don't want to have to deal with the historic district boards.

SDOT appears to remain clueless about historic preservation and historic character.

But your legacy as council members will not be whether SDOT saves itself a few meetings and maximizes its efficiency.

Your legacy will be whether the city historically

Our next speaker is Shelly Morrison.

After Shelly, we'll hear from Jace Moti.

Thank you.

In the spirit of Seattle Safer Streets, I'm here to highlight the safety hazards of the new locking gates that have been installed by parks on Lake Washington Boulevard.

These steel gates are five feet high and span the entire roadway.

they leave only a five-foot bypass for participants, which forces everyone into a narrow one-way, one-at-a-time funnel, creating more bike-on-bike and e-scooter collisions.

The gates are installed right at the access to public parking.

forcing more interaction with cars, not less.

The large cement bollards are only two to three feet from the roadway, creating 24 seven hazards.

SDOT has not been involved.

There has not been an ADA review.

And finally, these gates create a tremendous burden for emergency responders.

They have to get out of vehicles, find a key, unlock the gate.

We had a near drowning at Mount Baker Beach a month ago.

We need shorter response times.

not longer.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next, we'll hear from Jace Moti, followed by Maria.

Good morning, Jace Moti here.

I'm following up on Shelley with the closure or the installation of gates, permanent gates that lock on Lake Washington Boulevard provided by kind of manipulated data from the powerful bicycle lobby.

And my question is, how can a non-profit special interest group get a project like this funded and rubber stamped to installation without a public process?

or a review by SDOT engineers.

So we welcome that there be an audit of Vision Zero to make sure that safety is utmost for pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Our next speaker is Maria Stockard McDaniel.

Following Maria, we will hear from Lisa Howard.

Good morning.

I'm Maria Stocker McDaniel, born and raised in Seattle and retired from the city in March of this year, LT14.

I want safe streets in Seattle for all modes of transportation.

I understand SDOT knows how to make streets safe based on data.

My concern is who is providing the data as the basis for making roads changes.

I was shocked when the mayor announced the weekend closures for Lake Washington Boulevard and appalled when there was a ribbon cutting ceremony announced to reactivate Seward Park.

Seward Park has been used heavily and activated for years.

I've lived in South Seattle for over 40 years and some people would not set foot in the area out of fear until they realized they couldn't afford to live in other desirable neighborhoods and move south.

Now, some want to claim public areas for their own youth.

Gates have been installed.

Outreach to those impacted were not.

did not happen.

I was a senior business analyst and know how flawed data can steer projects and initiatives in directions that is not always in the best interest of the communities.

Keep in mind, the boulevard is a public roadway and should only be closed one bicycle Sunday a month during the summer.

Thank you, ma'am.

And shout out to LT Leadership Tomorrow.

Our next speaker is Lisa Howard.

Following that, we'll hear from Todd Lewicki.

Good morning Councilmembers, thanks for having me here today.

I'm Lisa Howard, I'm the Executive Director of the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

First off, thank you for your work on Vision Zero and your Safer Streets initiative, but today I'm here to ask you to please reject the Amendment 16 to Council Bill 121296. The Alliance strongly supports making our streets safer, and we appreciate your leadership Councilmember Saka.

But Pioneer Square is not simply a historic neighborhood in Seattle.

It is a nationally recognized historic district listed on the National Register's historic places and one of the places that gives Seattle its core identity.

We believe safety and conflict, we believe safety and preservation are not in conflict and they have not been historically.

If it's the case, we should not be responding to a specific concern about how one project, which was successfully implemented, safety measures on time, moved through the process by creating a blanket exception by passing historic review forever.

We can make our streets safer without eliminating meaningful review in our historic districts.

Please eliminate Amendment 16. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, counsel.

Good morning, counsel.

I'm the CEO of Good morning, Council.

I'm the CEO of the Seattle Kraken and the Climate Pledge Arena.

I'm here to support Randy Engelstrom for the Executive Director position.

He's a visionary, he is supportive, he is passionate, and he's tested.

He's tested with Memorial Stadium, a very complicated three-way agreement.

And today, Memorial is poised for greatness to support Seattle Public Schools and to bring greatness back to the campus.

and significant part due to Randy and his staff.

We look forward to working with Randy on that, the arena, all the great events that come, but one more mountain to climb, and that would be the return of the Sonics.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Todd.

Go Kraken.

We're gonna bring back those Sonics!

We got an NBA-ready arena right now, and we'll talk about the path later.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rob Johnson.

After Rob we'll hear from Brooks Kolb.

Good morning council, always hard following the boss, Todd Lewicki, also here to support Randy Engstrom.

Since 1998, sorry, 1988, Randy would be the fourth person to lead Seattle Center.

And in the time that he has been the head of Seattle Center, we've had some extreme highs, those moments of the World Cup where we had tens of thousands of people coming to Seattle Center.

and then some extreme lows with the recent tragic violence at the Bight of Seattle.

And what I hear from our staff at the foundation and from the staff at Seattle Center is how grateful they are to have Randy in charge, to have somebody who's experienced leading a city department, to have somebody who puts their needs first, to have somebody with great emotional intelligence, to have somebody who's got his eye on a bigger picture but is not afraid to dig into the details.

These are the skills that we really value in a leader, and we're very excited to have Randy as our next director.

We hope you'll encourage confirmation.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Our next speaker is Brooks Kolb.

After Brooks, we will hear from Parker Dawson.

Good morning, Council.

I'm with the Allied Arts Foundation.

Brooks Kolb is my name, and I'm here against Amendment 16 to the traffic ordinance.

Allied Arts Foundation is concerned about the recent erosion in power and authority of the Market Historical Commission.

It was empowered by the 1971 Citizens Initiative to make all planning and land use decisions within the Market Historic District.

Approving the amendment would overturn a long settled public initiative and city ordinance without a new vote of the public, unfairly tying the hands of both the Market Historic Commission and the Preservation and Development Authority.

The streets and alleys are clearly part of the historic district, and in the case of the Pike Place Market, the street is the name of the district.

This amendment cuts our historic district controls on the public spaces in the historic districts and should be opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Parker Dawson, who will be followed by Tia Petrovich.

Hey, that's me.

Good morning, everybody.

Parker Dawson here, Pioneer Square resident, speaking on behalf of Lime.

I want to thank you all, and particularly you, Chair Saka, for all of your tremendous leadership on Vision Zero and really narrowing down on many of the actions that our city truly needs and truly deserves, particularly around micro-mobility.

Lime has been operating in Seattle for almost 10 years, since 2017. and in that time we've very obviously and visibly seen micromobility explode as an ordinary means of transportation in the city.

Over 10 million trips served last year.

This year we're going to service nearly 750,000 residents and visitors alike as they explore and get around Seattle to conduct the daily business of their lives.

In that though, despite seeing highs like our share of low income residents jumping from nine to 13% year over year, we have also seen huge struggles in investments in things like corrals, protected bike lanes, and this is a huge positive step forward.

So thank you so much.

I hope to see it passed.

Thank you, Parker.

Now we'll hear from Tia Petrovic after Tia, Karen Olson.

Your choice.

Find the one that's just right.

There.

Sorry.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Tia Petrovich.

I'm a Pioneer Square resident and a former Pioneer Square Preservation Board member.

I, too, am asking that you reject Amendment 16. I do strongly, strongly support safe streets, and I appreciate council members' leadership on this matter.

I think we can make our streets safer while respecting the Secretary of Interior's standards.

especially obviously in historic districts.

Public safety and historic preservation, they're not in opposition.

As you've heard, they're not mutually exclusive.

In historic places like San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter, New Orleans' French Quarter, and Savannah Historic District, they found ways to create Vision Zero and honor historic standards, and we can do the same.

Please do not use safer streets as a way to bypass a public process that serves us well today.

Safer Streets legislation can make our streets safer, include public and community input, and protect our historic standards.

Thank you.

Thank you to you.

We'll now hear from Karen Olson and then Taryn Coles.

Good morning, Chair Saka and members of the Council.

I'm Karen Olson, Chief Operating Officer of the Space Needle.

I'm here to voice my support for the appointment of Ryan E. Ekstrom as the Executive Director of Seattle Center.

64 years ago, the city built a campus to imagine the future, and then we built a tower in the middle, tall enough so you can see that.

That wasn't happenstance, that wasn't innovation, it was ambition, and that's still the assignment.

The Space Uno supports Randy's confirmation because of what the campus is, and because what the campus can become.

One space with one pulse, that's one place for all.

That momentum is already here.

Randy is the right person to gather it, and we support him.

We urge your confirmation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Olson.

Our next speaker is Taryn Coles.

Following Taryn, we'll hear from Gordon Padelford.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Taryn Coles, and I am the assistant director of Chihuly Garden and Glass, located on the Seattle Center campus.

I'm here to express our strong support for Randy Engstrom's confirmation as director of Seattle Center.

As an active partner on the 74-acre campus, we understand how critical the center's leadership is to our daily operations, visitor experience, and collective success.

Seattle Center is a complex ecosystem of arts organizations, nonprofits, sports venues, and private businesses.

Managing it requires a leader who values deep collaboration, open communication, and shared civic pride.

That's Randy.

Seattle Center needs a director who can seamlessly balance world-class tourism, community safety, and robust support for campus partners.

We are confident that Randy brings the visionary leadership and collaborative spirit needed to ensure Seattle Center continues to thrive as our city's premier cultural hub.

For these reasons, we enthusiastically support his nomination and respectfully urge the council to confirm Randy Engstrom.

Thank you.

Thank you, Taryn.

Our next speaker is Gordon Pedelford.

After Gordon, we will hear from Matt Hanna.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Gordon Pedelford.

I'm the executive director of the Seattle Streets Alliance.

Really appreciate this committee's focus on Vision Zero.

A lot of the amendments or a lot of the work here has been on strengthening the chief safety engineer.

And so I just want to offer a thought experiment where if you're walking downtown on First Avenue headed south, The person with the ultimate responsibility for whether you're safe or not is Venu Namani until you hit Columbia, and all of a sudden it becomes a preservation board when you hit Pioneer Square.

And that doesn't quite sit right when we're thinking about public accountability, we're thinking about public safety.

There needs to be someone with authority to make sure our streets are safe as we're walking through them.

Obviously, we all care about history, our heritage.

We want SDOT to consult, make sure these projects are being done responsibly.

But the person with the authority to make sure we're safe needs to be the chief traffic safety engineer, which is what the rest of the legislation does.

So please have that go through the historic district as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gordon.

Our next speaker is Matt Hanna.

After Matt, we'll hear from Noah Williams.

Good morning, council members.

Matt Hanna.

I'm the chair of the Seattle Center Foundation Board, and I'm here to express the board's support for Randy Angstrom as well for the position of director of Seattle Center.

As many of you know, we have a strategic vision and action plan ready for the Seattle Center that is very big and wonderful and exciting.

And the foundation is charged with raising about $100 million in support of that vision.

It's critical for us that we have a leader at the helm Seattle Center that can inspire confidence and conviction about that vision, and that's Randy.

For one reason or another, I didn't know Randy very well before the work that we started together several months ago, and I'm beyond impressed what he's brought to the table.

And on behalf of the Foundation Board and all our prospective donors, I can tell you he is absolutely the right person to be leading realization of this vision and strategic vision and action plan into the future.

So we support him, and we hope you do too.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Noah Williams.

After Noah, I believe the name I'm reading is Will Lindlam.

Thank you, council members.

My name is Noah Williams, and I'd first like to thank Chair Saka for proposing zero legislation and express my gratitude to the council and mayor who are clearly pulling in the same direction here.

Thank you.

I always love hearing Hoboken cited as an example, and I admire their approach to transportation safety.

I'm here today to urge you to support the amendment granting SDOT ultimate design power on intersection design.

The historic district representatives here want to have their input considered, and they're welcome to continue doing so.

I encourage them to do that.

However, the process we have isn't working right now for the reasons Gordon explained.

We have intersections in the city that are dangerous and badly in need of improvement that haven't been fixed fast enough, and people are being hit and injured or killed in the meantime.

It is important that qualified engineers who put their licenses on the line with every stamp they affix to a project make the final decisions and aren't subject to the direct pressures that may or may not be lined with safety.

We must empower the engineers to do what they are uniquely qualified to do.

Please give them that power throughout our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Noah.

Our next speaker is Will.

After Will, we'll hear from Jan Johnson.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is Will Ludlam.

I'm the Vice Chair of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.

I'm here today to show my endorsement and support for Randy Engstrom as the new Executive Director.

Randy's history in working with the community, support for the arts, civic engagement and inclusiveness is exactly the background that the Seattle Center and the waterfront needs at this critical moment.

Randy has already established in his short time both his commitment to the center, the community, and working with the commission.

We look forward to continuing that partnership and the great things ahead.

It's a really important year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final in-person speaker so far will be Jan Johnson.

After Jan, we're going to go to remote speakers, and our first remote speaker will be Mike Stewart.

Welcome, Jan.

Good morning, Jan Johnson.

I'm here from Japantown in the CID area, and my building's a national treasure, I think one of 27 in the United States, and it comes under right after Mount Rainier National Park.

in the national landmark status.

A lot of the people in this room are my friends, and we do not support this coming through our historic districts.

There's five generations of my family in this city, and my mother told me stories about going to the market.

I wonder what they would say today.

and I object to this.

There needs to be more visibility.

I don't even get it.

But the people that come to my door come from all over the United States and all over the world and the things that they admire about the city are the things that we're preserving in historic identity.

So I appreciate your consideration in this and apply a lot to safety.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jan.

We are now going to switch to our remote callers.

Our first remote caller is Mike Stewart.

After Mike, we'll hear from Haley Land.

Mike, please hit star six to speak.

Good morning, Chair Salka and community members.

My name's Mike Stewart.

I'm the Executive Director of the Ballard Alliance, an improvement organization that includes the Ballard Avenue Landmark District.

I'm here today to request that you please reject Amendment 16 to Council Bill 121296. Since 1976, the Ballard Avenue Landmark District has served the Ballard community very well.

It is a necessary form of local governance that ensures this historic district is preserved and that when change is requested, there's a pathway for thoughtful communication, process, oversight and approval.

In fact, Seattle's Landmark Districts are some of the most well visited and economically thriving neighborhoods in our city.

Unfortunately, Amendment 16 will dismantle a process that has worked successfully for 50 years.

Providing overarching authority to a city traffic engineer is not the right approach and will erode protections that preserve Seattle's best neighborhoods.

Please vote no on Amendment 16. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Haley Land.

After Haley, we'll hear from Gina Carraba.

Haley, please hit star six.

Hi, I'm Haley Land.

I've worked at Pike Place Market for 41 years.

Amendment 16 doesn't take into account that Pike Place, the street, is the most unique street in the city.

To lump it in with any other Seattle street is to misunderstand its history, and relevance to the market's culture and Seattle's history.

And if you do know the market, you know there is no other street in Seattle that comes close to this level of complexity.

The Market Historical Commission is designed to fit and design market safety like a wise, well-tuned, and slowly evolving glove.

Do I think DOT or parks or neighborhoods or any outside entity can pull that off?

No, I do not.

And neither do people who are intimate with the markets I hope the bill's sponsors are sincere public servants and open to re-evaluation.

I'll conclude by saying please don't take this inelegant approach toward the soul of the city.

It's written with a lack of cultural awareness and understanding and I beat the clock.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote caller will be Gina Carraba.

After Gina, we'll hear from Ernie Dornfeld.

Star six.

No.

Gina.

Can I, am I being heard?

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, thank you.

Gina, we can hear you.

Gina, it looks like you muted yourself.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, I keep trying to comment and I keep getting interrupted by the operator.

Can you hear me now?

Go ahead, yep, go ahead.

Okay, disenfranchised businesses, this survey that was put out that says 98% of Seattleites agree with this, it's only 5,000 people out of 100,000 people, that's only 14%, and they only talk to half of the businesses in the Pike Place market The numbers are very disingenuous and skewed.

SDOT took almost a year to come to the same conclusions that were offered by the community almost a year ago.

But yeah, the survey is very misleading and I've seen other things that the SDOT has proposed and instigated that are very unsafe for the streets like changing from 15 mile an hour to 25 mile an hour zones on side streets in West Seattle, things like that.

I hope that we reject this amendment.

The Historic Council is the only one that's going...

Thank you, Gina.

Our next caller is Ernie Dornfield.

After Ernie, we'll hear from Alper Sarakaya.

Ernie, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Hello, my name's Ernie Dornfeld.

I'm speaking today to urge you to vote against Amendment 16 to Council Bill 121296. This amendment removes the Market Historical Commission's ability to review design of traffic control features within the historic district.

The Market Historical Commission has been in existence since 1971. It has successfully guided preservation of the market's historical character and function.

The MHC's community volunteers are in close touch with the life of the market and its vibrant community.

SDOT should be welcoming the Commission's input and collaboration.

Please vote against Amendment 16, which will reduce the Market Historical Commission's influence and design of features within the Market Historical District.

Thank you.

Thank you, Arnie.

Our next caller is Alper Sarakaya.

After Alper, we will hear from Morgan Littlefield.

Alper, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Good morning, community.

My name is Alper Serakaya.

I'm a resident in Wedgwood.

I appreciate the effort here to codify some of the urgency of Vision Zero practices and the code to help unblock quick practical application of street infrastructure to reduce traffic deaths and injuries.

I especially want to thank Council Member Rink for introducing Amendment 16, which would eliminate red tape surrounding the practical implementation of proven strategies for safer streets for all.

SDOT already does outreach at a level far beyond other cities' traffic departments and I want to clarify that SDOT is ultimately responsible for the public right of way and is also responsible for the safety of all road users.

This isn't design review, land use, neighborhoods, or anything else.

My general comment for you all is that the goal of this legislation should be to make city staff's job easier to make safer streets and that this committee should know what roadblocks currently exist for SDOT to react quickly when our friends and neighbors are taken from us due to road infrastructure.

I wasn't able to see this work in the agenda packet today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next public commenter is Morgan Littlefield.

After Morgan, we'll hear from Daniel Fleming.

Morgan, please hit star six.

Good morning and thank you.

I'm Morgan Littlefield, Senior Director of City and Community Partnerships for Climate Pledge Arena.

I'm calling to support the appointment of Randy Engstrom as Director of Seattle Center.

On behalf of One Roof Sports and Entertainment, we thank Council for taking this step today and fully support the confirmation of Randy Engstrom as Director of Seattle Center.

For decades, Randy has been a key figure in Seattle's arts, culture, and public policy, including serving as Director of the City's Office of Arts and Culture.

He is highly respected and admired across Seattle's cultural landscape and is known for building strong partnerships across the community.

Randy's collaborative approach with the Seattle Center Foundation, resident partners, and others on Seattle Center's campus have already started to build a foundation that will benefit him and all of us as we work together to serve our community, grow Seattle Center, and continue building the Century 21 Masters.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Daniel Fleming.

After Daniel, we'll hear from Grace Leong.

Daniel, please hit star six.

Hi there.

My name is Daniel Fleming and I am here to express my no on Amendment 16. I'm a Pike Place Market Daystall business owner.

and I've watched the market exist kind of in concert with the city's bureaucracies for 20 years and I'm hard-pressed to come up with a good feeling about the idea that someone that has not been involved in the hands-on operation of a historic district for an extended period of time, although they are a highly qualified engineer, et cetera, would be capable of taking on the task of understanding the place, specifically Pike Place Market.

So I'm a no on Amendment 16, and that's all I have.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Grace Leong.

After Grace, we have Sarah Goldenberg, who's not currently in the queue.

So if she's not here, after Grace speaks, we'll go to Jean Bateman.

Grace, please hit star six.

Thank you for taking my public comment.

I'm speaking in opposition to Council Bill 121296, specifically amendment 16. My name is Grace Liang.

I am an architect.

I have lived and worked near the Pike Place Market for over 20 years.

I've been on the Market Historical Commission since 2021 and I'm the Vice Chair.

I'm also speaking on behalf of Jonathan Cracolucci, the Chair of the Commission.

We have had an ongoing and fruitful relationship with SDOT, including regular meetings.

There was a recent productive application from SDOT on August 26th.

We'd like to continue growing that relationship.

and discuss whatever pain point this amendment is attempting to address.

We would like to note that no outreach regarding this amendment has happened, although we welcome those conversations.

We would like to request that the process slow down a bit as we do not have clarity on the implications of this proposed change.

There is not an urgent need to...

There's not an urgent change needed in the district to address safety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Grace.

Sarah Goldenberg isn't currently in the queue, so we're going to go to Jane Bateman.

After Jane, we'll hear from John Keno and we'll try to get back to Sarah by the end of the public comment period.

Jane, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Jean Bateman.

I'm a resident of the Downtown Commercial Corps.

and the extended market historical district neighborhood in District 7. I've been here for about 35 years.

I join in opposing Amendment 16 to CB 121296. I fully support public safety.

I understand it, and I thank you for your work.

However, Amendment 16 is not the way to achieve our interconnected historic safety and preservation goals citywide across our landmark and historic districts.

I oppose this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jean.

Our next speaker will be John Kino.

After John, we'll hear from Brandon Der Blatter.

John, please hit star six.

Hey, good morning.

I'm John Tino.

I own a business in Pike Place Market and I also sit on the Historic Commission.

But today I'm speaking for myself.

The time and consideration the community has put into 12-12-96 is impressive.

But I ask you to now add clear language to assure collaborative partnerships that achieve safety and shared management of this public street.

Created by statute, a community body like the MHC is responsible for use and design of the National Historic Landmark District.

Hype Place is itself a mixed-use street and street use cannot be separated from the statutory oversight afforded to the MHC.

We must codify the role of subject matter experts from fields such as architecture and historic preservation to work as strategic collaborators and peers with the transportation subject matter experts at SDOT in a way that respects each body as co-equal skills and responsibilities.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Our next caller is Brandon Der Blatter.

After Brandon, we have David Haynes.

It doesn't appear like Mr. Haynes is in the queue yet, so if he hasn't called in by the time Brandon's done speaking, we'll go to Riley Avron.

Brandon, please hit star six.

Note the bias in these comments.

Not everyone can give public comments at 10 a.m.

on a work day.

Anyway, recently we removed some railing from the main Gasworks Park structure because too many people were climbing on it and falling to their deaths.

We made a historical thing less historical in the interest of safety because people were dying.

Please allow SDOT to implement Vision Zero projects without historical commission review.

SDOT already defers to historical commissions way too much, giving commissions power they don't legally have.

We need explicit authority for them to prioritize the very measurable and tangible safety outcomes over the nebulous and intangible historic character of various parts of the city.

If you had a button in front of you that caused a neighborhood to lose some historic character, but pushing it would save someone from being hit and killed by a car, would you push it?

I know I would.

With only three years left before the Vision Zero deadline, with deaths from cars hardly trending downward, we need to use every tool available to make our city safer.

Please support amendments 13 and 16. And if you want to make historical places more accurately historic, remove the cars.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brandon.

It doesn't look like Mr. Haynes is in the queue.

So we'll hear from Riley Avron.

After Riley, we'll hear from Carlo Alcantara.

And as promised by the end of this, we'll try to get back with Sarah and David.

Riley, please hit star six.

Good morning, my name is Riley from West Seattle and I'm a member of the Pike Place Market constituency.

I'm asking for a yes vote on Amendment 16. The phrase Seattle process is often used to describe the frustratingly slow pace of improvements in our city.

A key cause of this paralysis is that our city is what political scientist Francis Fukuyama calls a vetoocracy, a dysfunctional system of governance where so many entities have a veto over action that little or nothing can be accomplished.

The status quo of inaction is not neutral.

While each little fiefdom is consulted and compromised with, Seattle residents continue to be injured and killed on our streets.

Amendment 16 recognizes this and puts authority for traffic safety where it belongs, with SDOT.

Please vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Carlo Alcantara.

After Carlo, we will hear from Clara Cantor.

Carlo, please hit star six.

Hey, good morning.

My name is Carlo.

I originally wanted to talk about some things in Pioneer Square and how they have been prevented from making safety upgrades due to historic preservation.

But we heard a lot from people commenting about historic preservation in the market this morning.

and I just wanted to kind of call attention to the car currently being stuck on the harbor steps that drove through post alley where some bollards used to be that are now replaced by cones.

So while we sit here and kind of debate the merits of historic preservation, we actively have a situation going on right now where there's a car that is driven into a space that is supposed to be meant for pedestrians to walk safely.

but I do wanna just quickly voice my support for amendment 16. So please pass this and help us keep our streets safer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next caller is Clara Cantor.

After Clara, we will hear from Leonard Jerome.

Clara, please hit star six.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, good morning, Clara.

Hi, my name is Clara Cantor and I'm a community organizer with Seattle Streets Alliance.

I'm also here to thank the council for your action in support of Vision Zero and to ask that you please support the amendment that would allow a stop to implement important safety improvements in historic districts.

I am here listening to other commenters and I just was looking at some of the safety data as I was listening.

And in the last two years, there have been 55 people injured or killed in traffic crashes in the Pioneer Square Historic District alone.

So this is an urgent need, and this is important to keep people safe.

And this legislation would still have SDOT working collaboratively with historic district boards to ensure that the historic and cultural and architectural alignment is there, and that's something that's vitally important for the character of our city.

but they would also be able to move forward and make these streets safer for the people who are out walking around enjoying those historic districts in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clara.

Our next speaker is Leonard Jerome.

After Leonard, we will hear from David Haynes.

Leonard, please hit star six.

Hello, City Council Members.

My name is Leonard Harrison Jerome.

I want to thank Council Member Rank for proposing Amendment 16. Being able to quickly and effectively implement safety projects in the public right-of-way is key for meeting Vision Zero, especially in our historic district.

This amendment would remove the ability of historic districts, it would remove their ability to stop safety projects in order to preserve parking.

Over the last few years, historic boards have blocked bicycle parking and daylighting in intersections, a policy that could save lives.

They've also blocked closing right place to non-emergency, non-vendor vehicles.

One thing I think the entire council should keep in mind is that these streets don't belong to any board.

They don't belong to any business.

They factually and legally belong to the people of the City of Seattle.

That is true.

and 98% of Seattleites have said that they want Pike Place, a street that belongs to them, to be reprioritized for kids to play, for people to dance, for customers to sit, and for new vendors to solve.

That should be the end of the discussion.

And historic boards have blocked that.

This is a problem.

So I hope that you support Amendment 16 so that we can do what is probably one of the most popular things we could possibly do.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Haynes.

After David, we'll hear from Sarah Goldenberg if she has the chance to call in.

David, please hit star six.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

Today is a reminder that Seattle is dealing with a 20th century car-centric infrastructure that needs to reimagine prioritizing a pedestrian-centric, resident-friendly neighborhood and that vision zero, which sometimes seems like there's zero vision, needs to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan to the point of purging the people who weaponize certain aspects to accommodate the landlord's greedy self-interest that basically still allows for low level, low quality on the side of the road.

where people are interacting in their residential community and they're constantly dealing with some road driving through or some ridiculous service road.

And we need to robustly build out with the walkable neighborhood.

And not just you can walk down a couple blocks, but you can walk without being on the side of the road or having a constant pedestrian-centric.

Also, when you push the button for the stoplight, you get a pedestrian.

Thank you.

Sarah Goldenberg has not yet called in.

We have had one more in-person speaker sign up.

So now we will hear from Marissa Tanimura.

Good morning, welcome Marissa.

Doesn't matter?

Your choice.

Yeah, just speak directly into it.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Reese Tanimura, Marissa.

I am the managing director of Northwest Folklife.

I'm the owner of Royal Room in Columbia City, and a musician and a resident of the city since 2007. I served on the Seattle Music Commission from 2015 to 2021, where I was the chair from 2018 through the pandemic and through my term.

And that's where I got to work with Randy Engstrom, who I am here in support of today.

I will start by saying we are in a moment.

The city needs leaders who can build and rebuild trust, leaders who can hear the hopes, fears, and dreams of its citizenry and nurture a vision of thriving local communities, leaders who will look into every nook and cranny to find resources to invest back in the people who believe in the immense potential and beauty of our corner of the world, and leaders who stand up for humanity, human connection, and cultural efficacy.

And I believe that Randy Engstrom is that person.

So I hope that you will strongly consider his appointment to the director of Seattle Center.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marissa.

Chair, we don't have anybody currently in the queue.

All right, thank you.

Thank you everyone for your public comment.

Looks like there are no additional registered speakers, so we will now proceed to our substantive items of business.

Before we read agenda item one into the record and I kind of give a run of show and provide some additional explanatory context for how things will proceed, I wanna recognize Vice Chair Rink.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I'd like to request that the committee take a 10 minute recess.

All right, I agree.

And I don't think we need a formal motion for that.

Council, this committee will be in recess for approximately 10 minutes, 1035. Let's make it 10, we'll reconvene at 1046. Thank you.

I used to use the machine to use the machine to use it I just feel better having them.

I know.

How many minutes?

I think our 10-minute timer has expired, so I think whenever we get quorum back,

Bridges, your chair.

My pleasure.

Thank you.

I'm pinging Council Member Lin's office.

I want my coffee and I want it to be good.

And I know if I order what I normally order it.

All right.

Bob, Bob, Bob.

That's not this.

Lexus.

Council Member Kittle.

Let's get started.

Whoa.

Okay.

Whoa.

Don't rush there.

You want to call?

I've asked.

I got enough.

I got the legal update.

All right.

Okay.

All right, it's 10.49 a.m.

We're reconvening after a brief recess period.

Let's go ahead and have the committee clerk please call the roll again.

Council Member Foster.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Lin.

Here.

Vice Chair Rank.

members present.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Excellent.

Before we read the first item of business into the record, let me go ahead and explain for a moment, run a show and next steps.

So there are three specific ordinances that collectively comprise the Safer Streets Act package, each of which will be presented separately The members of this committee have collectively proposed 16 total amendments to these bills, some of which, although they're officially 16 pieces of paper, some of them address cross-cutting issues across all three bills.

And so, effectively, it addresses one construct, but across three pieces of paper.

But to help streamline and simplify things, I have worked with central staff to consolidate the more technical amendments or other amendments that are slightly more substantive, but there's more generally more consensus into a proposed consent package.

Members are free to pull out a bill of each of the proposed consent packages.

This does not require a second or a reason even for why the request is being made.

If an item is removed, it will be considered after the consent amendment package vote and in numerical order.

Before voting on a consent amendment package, members will have an opportunity to specifically highlight and speak briefly to an item within the consent package group.

There are three amendments that have not been included in one of the proposed consent packages.

They will be heard and voted on under this agenda item.

And for clarity, I will be withdrawing my proposed amendment number one for further consideration potentially later.

That said, any questions, comments, colleagues on the process?

Roadshow here.

All right, let's see here.

Let us move on.

Committee clerk, can you please?

We will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda Item 1, briefing, discussion and possible vote.

Council Bill 121296, an ordinance relating to traffic safety, applying traffic safety best practices such as a Vision Zero Plan, guiding principles or successor policies in exercising traffic administration authority, establishing study reporting and prioritization standards and aligning rulemaking and project delivery with proven safety countermeasures renumbering sections 11.14.714 and 11.14.715 of the Seattle Municipal Code as sections 11.14 11.14.725 and adding a new section 11.14.716 to the Seattle Municipal Code and amending sections 11.16.120, 11.16.180 and 11.16.200, 11.16.220, 11.16340 and 15.70.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you.

That's a mouthful, clerk.

Take a breather.

Looks like our presenters have already joined us at the table.

Welcome.

Please do introduce yourselves and then when you're ready, begin your presentation.

Good morning, council members.

Amanda Allen with central staff.

Ann Gorman, central staff.

All right, let's jump in.

Okay, Amendment 1, Version 1 to Council Bill 121296 to the Traffic Safety Ordinance.

This is sponsored by Council Member Saka.

This amendment would further define a vulnerable traveler.

providing additional context that the definition of a vulnerable traveler would explicitly include those in the public way using ambulatory aids or who may use other aids given mobility impairments.

Thank you.

As a sponsor of this proposed amendment, I'll just briefly note, you know, my office worked closely with the Seattle Disability Commission to make sure that this new statutory definition we're codifying here in the code is more accessible and more inclusive, and this is the work product, the deliverable.

So, proud to partner with the Commission, and here we are.

Thank you.

Great.

Amendment five version one to council bill 1296 is sponsored by council member Rink.

And this amendment is actually this kind of has the same spirit as the council member was mentioning in his comments.

We're gonna try to consolidate some of the discussion.

This amendment has an identical spirit to Amendment 3 of 121297 and Amendment 4 to 121298. Section 1 of Council Bill 121296 includes several findings of facts, as do the other council bills.

This amendment would move those findings into the bill's recitals section.

Typically recitals provide historical context or explain the policy motives for enacting an ordinance, and this amendment is consistent with this practice.

the recitals are not part of the law being passed by a given ordinance.

They differ from findings in that respect.

They differ in findings from that respect because findings are not part of the law being passed a judge seeking to resolve an interpretational question subsequent to the passage would use the findings as an element of the ordinance to do so.

So should any interpretational questions for this bill or the other three bills arise in the future, these amendments would preclude a judge from having the ability to use those statements to resolve those questions.

A judge instead would have to rely on the bill language.

Thank you.

As sponsor of this, Vice Chair Rank, I'll give you an opportunity, if you so choose, to mention this, speak to this.

I appreciate the opportunity, Chair Saga.

Again, I think much of the language that you have developed as a part of this legislation, and particularly in this part of the legislation, has really great values and sentiments I agree with.

I believe that they functionally will better serve as recital components, and so that is why I've brought forward this amendment.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Go ahead.

Amendment 6, version 1 to Council Bill 1296 is also sponsored by Council Member Rink.

There are similar amendments to this amendment, including Amendment 8 to 121297 and Amendment 7 to 121298. These three pieces of legislation would amend, sorry, would remove the language, specifically calling out a quote-unquote vision zero plan and replace it with more generic language referring to a quote traffic safety program to clarify that traffic safety is a shared responsibility, that the future efforts may not take and that future efforts may not take the form of a Vision Zero Plan.

Given this change, Section 6, also included in Council Bill 121296, which defines the Vision Zero Plan is no longer needed and is proposed to be removed.

This change in reference to a, quote, traffic safety program, end quote, would reduce the potential need for future amendments of the Seattle Municipal Code should we move to a different branding.

Thank you.

I, again, will give the amendment sponsor an opportunity to briefly speak to this amendment.

Vice Chair Ring.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I will be very brief and just note the spirit of this amendment is to ensure sustainability of the legislation that we're putting forward today.

Vision Zero is the key term, the hot topic, the terminology we use right now, but to ensure sustainability moving forward should our national discourse or work on the Safe Streets approach change.

I think this allows for us to be nimble and ensure, again, the action that we're taking through this legislation has that sustainability.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I like this amendment.

I attempted to address the same thing by saying Vision Zero or successor program in the base legislation, but this is one area where multiple sets of eyes on a proposal can definitely help iterate and improve upon it.

So I like this approach.

Thank you.

All right.

What do we got next?

okay next we have amendment 9 version 1 to council bill 121296 also sponsored by council member Rink this amendment would would change the legislation to make changes that recognize the role of the Washington State Department of Transportation or WSDOT recognizing the role that they do play in reviewing Seattle Department of Transportation's work and seeking to maintain a constructive relationship between the city and the state, given that most of WSDOT's feedback on city designs is received within three weeks.

so this amendment would change some of the recitals and, well, technically this amendment changes some of the Section 1 language and removes Section 5 of the bill.

Thank you, Amanda.

As Vice Chair, as sponsor of this amendment, you are recognized if you wanted to comment briefly on your proposal.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I want to note, I know this amendment went through a couple of iterations and some really through some great conversations with you and your office, being able to restore and acknowledge the needed collaboration between WSDOT and SDOT when it comes to planning and being able to have reasonable expectations around when they get back to us with that feedback.

And so I really appreciate you for working with me to understand your intentions around that timeline component.

and I think this amendment represents a healthy compromise here and I appreciate its inclusion in the consent package.

Thank you, Chair.

Well said, Vice Chair, thank you.

I too greatly appreciate your partnership and collaboration and we're all clearly working towards the same goal here, so appreciate your thoughtful engagement and making it better.

This is a great approach and that's why it's in the proposed package.

Thank you.

All right, what else we got?

Amendment 12 version 1 to Council Bill 121296 is sponsored by Councilmember Foster.

This amendment would create flexibility for the Seattle Department of Transportation to formally update their traffic safety plan by adding the language of quote approximately every end quote three years.

SDOT has requested this change to allow for alignment with the Vision Zero Action Plan updates with the 2030 deadline.

Thank you.

Let's see here.

Who's a- Council Member Foster.

Council Member Foster.

You're recognized as a sponsor of this piece of amendment.

Thank you so much, Chair.

I appreciate that.

This is a small change that updates language to stay approximately every three years rather than no later than with the goal of ensuring that we have alignment as was stated by central staff.

So a small technical amendment and thank you for including it in the package.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

All right, Amanda.

Next amendment is the last one in the consent package for this bill.

This is amendment 14, sponsored by Council Member Foster.

It addresses two sections of Council Bill 121296, both of which relate to fatal crash policy at the Seattle Department of Transportation.

In section 3, this amendment deletes certain references to SDOT's programmatic fatal crash policy.

And in section 4, it revises the parameters for a report that SDOT is requested to provide to the Council next year on the same subject.

Thank you.

And again, Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Chair.

And again, I'll be brief.

The intent of this amendment was to update some of the parameters to get it just more closely in alignment with the practices in the department to ensure that the reports will be able to be provided on time and have enough information for council to be useful and just wanted to update the code to reflect that alignment to set us up for success.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

I really like this provision.

What I like most about this proposal is it does a great job at simplifying, and it's broadly in line with what I had in mind when we worked with community to write this up.

it does so in less words, and still ultimately, I think, would achieve the same goal.

The department is following along and has been following along closely the chronology of this and the evolution of this provision, so it'd certainly be, even though it doesn't expressly call out at least three options, it'd be wise to definitely include that in your proposal next year, but love the simplicity of this.

Thank you for including it.

All right.

That's it for the consent package.

That's all the...

Okay, excellent.

At this time, I will...

Now everyone, all the sponsors have had a chance to speak to their respective amendments in this particular package.

Is there anyone who would like to remove an item from this proposed package?

Seeing none.

Let's see here, just a moment.

Okay.

I move to pass consent package of amendments for Council Bill 121296. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved.

The motion has been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion on this package?

Hearing and seeing none, will the...

Actually, do we have to move the base bill first?

At ease, at ease, at ease.

Okay, all right.

Don't clarify, I think we're right.

We have consensus up here.

We gotta move the base bill first, so let me do that.

So I move to adopt Council Bill 121296. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the bill.

Now that there is a pending motion, I think now we can redo what we just tried to do, is vote on the consent package for this bill.

All right.

I move to adopt the consent package of amendments for Council Bill 121296. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded.

The motion has been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Hearing seeing none, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the motion?

Oh, oh, oh.

Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, Chair.

Before you get there.

I was just gonna thank everyone's involvement in this and bringing these amendments forward.

I think they're good to all the positions that, points that you've made.

And I just wanna thank our colleagues for bringing this forward to be packaged together in this chair package.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Well said.

Any other comments?

Visually, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair Saga.

I wanted to just take a moment to thank you for pulling together this consent package process, for your collaborative work with my office on this, and in particular, your work as well on working with the Disability Commission on the Vulnerable Traveler Amendment.

I think that is a good policy improvement on this, and I want to thank you for your work on it.

My pleasure, appreciate your partnership as well.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else?

Looking, hearing, seeing none.

All right, now will the committee clerk please call the roll on the pending motion before us in the consent package.

Council Member Foster.

Yes.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Council Member Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rink.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

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

All right, the motion passes and the consent package is now part of the amended proposed bill.

We will now move on to the three, really two, additional amendments.

Again, for clarity, I am withdrawing for consideration today.

Amendment number two.

which means we will move on to proposed amendment number 13. I think a motion would be in order.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Colleagues, yesterday you received an updated version of this amendment.

with a couple of technical changes that was sent to you via email and it was provided to you today on the dais.

So what I would like to do is move that this motion be considered and ask for a suspension of the rules in order for us to consider Amendment 13, Version 2.

Do we have to vote on that?

Or is there a second?

Move to suspend the rules.

Okay.

So there's a motion, there's a pending motion seconded by Vice Chair to suspend the rules.

Any further discussion to allow this?

No.

All right.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll on the motion to suspend the rules?

Councilmember Foster.

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rink.

Yes.

Chair Sacca.

Aye.

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

All right.

The motion passes.

Suspending the rules to accommodate the revised walk-on version of the amendment.

Councilmember Foster.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for allowing the suspension of the rules.

As you know, I really always respect our processes and hate to bring something late, but there was a few technical corrections that we needed to make here, so this allows us to make those changes.

At its core, this amendment, I think, is largely a few technical corrections.

We're looking at a difference in words from adopted to used in a few sections here, and really wanted to bring this forward to make sure that we, again, have alignment, and it reflects the input of SDOT and several subject matter experts.

And, you know, Council Member Saka, as you said earlier, one of my other amendments was simplifying, given that we are adopting new language into the code, and so this amendment reflects that continued approach so that we can get the information that we need back from the department, but that we are not codifying down to a particular level of detail that requires us to revisit this again in the future.

And this allows us to get what we need and also have a evergreen approach to this bill.

So colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

I will now turn it over to our central staff colleagues to brief the bill or the amendment.

First, I'd like to substantiate everything that Councilmember Foster just said.

Those elements are present in this amendment and just a couple of additions.

The amendment includes some technical corrections that refer more accurately to current practices at SDOT and it also removes anachronistic traffic safety language from the Seattle Municipal Code.

That's all I have to add.

Excellent, thank you.

Colleagues, are there any comments or questions on Amendment 13 before us?

Councilmember, or I'll start first.

Just in case, Vice Chair, do you have any comments on this or this amendment?

Thank you, Chair Zaka.

I just wanted to voice my support for it, and I appreciate Councilmember Foster's work on this.

Thank you.

Excellent, thank you.

Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Foster, for bringing this forward.

I support a lot of it, but I have one question, which is a little bit of a sticking point in either you or for central staff.

In Section 11.16.180, soon to be Paragraph 3, I can understand taking out the language the extra wording of vulnerable travelers and city streets.

But my concern is the taking out, in terms of the reporting requirement, the severity level, the typology, suspect or confirm impairment data involved with the crashes, and then traffic citations issued by the Seattle Police Department.

Can you speak to that?

Because that's a little bit of a hangup for me.

I was just looking for clarification on that point for central staff and or Council Member Foster.

Sure, I can speak to this.

Some of the data that was originally requested for SDOT to provide is not necessarily within SDOT's ability to provide.

The SPD collects certain data and SDOT collects certain data.

Some of the data that SPD collects is privileged.

It may be used for law enforcement purposes.

and we don't want to commit SDOT to providing data that's not within its capacity to provide.

And so, Ms. Gorman, was this so then coordinated with your colleagues who cover the police side of things or with SPD directly to ensure that?

We certainly spoke with other central staff analysts who work with the Seattle Police Department, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We actually voted and adopted the motion to suspend the rules, but I don't think we have yet a motion on the amendments before us that we already started discussing, so I guess a motion would be in order for Amendment Number 13.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Saka.

I move that the council consider Amendment 13, Version 2.

Second.

Second.

We have a pending motion.

It's moved and seconded.

to consider proposed amendment number 13 to Council Bill 121296. We've already had some conversation, but for formality purposes, I'll give the amendment sponsor another crack.

And if any others have comments after that, welcome them.

Council Member Foster.

Thank you, and thank you for your question, Councilmember Kettle, and I just want to be clear.

Obviously, I think we all share a concern around traffic crashes, traffic safety, and certainly anybody driving drunk or driving under impairment, but again, the intent here is to make sure that the bill is implementable, aligned with the rest of the language here, and I believe that if this language was included, it's actually not going to be something the Department is able to provide back, and so wanted to have that clarity up front, and this amendment does that.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Any other comments, questions on this bill?

Is that a stale hand, Councilmember Kettle?

Hold hands.

All right, cool.

I'll just say I appreciate Councilmember Foster for bringing this forward and appreciate the collaboration we've had offline on this and other aspects of this bill.

That is just the one provision that that I can't support, would otherwise probably support, even though I don't love certain features of this.

But that one provision there, look, this package is gonna impose, as any legislation does, it's gonna impose some operational challenges and burdens.

I...

that's table stakes.

We know that's gonna happen.

And I'm sensitive to those and I'm mindful of those.

But just because it's gonna impose some operational challenges or burdens on how to implement effectively doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

I'm generally a fan of more disclosures, more robust data, more robust information.

being produced and shared and disclosed in the interest of transparency and not less.

I would have been open to more genericizing the duty it purports to impose on and the department and genericize it to more broadly the executive branch or some other department or whoever, or coordinate, they shall coordinate to achieve, but just removing it entirely, I can't support it for those reasons, but I do appreciate the intent here and the stake-holding that you did to achieve this.

I'm not surprised that SDOT thinks there's an administrative burden associated with this, but anyway, thank you.

Go ahead, Councilmember Kendall.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to-I hear-I understand what Ms. Gorman said in terms of coordination.

It makes sense to me.

And then I understand Councilmember Foster, too.

And so as listening to Chair, I wonder if the language had said, you know, provide the annual report in regarding traffic and traffic crashes that included data which could be coming from other departments to be included into an SDOT report.

If that would, you know, kind of, as I like to say, square the circle on that.

You know what I'm saying?

So then, so it's included, but it also, because that's a very valid point.

SDOT is not responsible and there's issues with that.

So, but if it was coming, if SPD was providing what they can, you know, obviously there's cases and so forth, and that SDOT could then include it to pull out a fuller picture of their report.

And so I'm looking at like both points, because they're both very valid, and if it just said that included different pieces from whatever source they may come from.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair.

And I really appreciate this discussion.

And, you know, one thing I do want to lift up is there is a difference between, you know, administrative burden and, you know, private or sensitive data that SPD collects in the process of doing their responsibilities that they are not able to share, and I believe Ms. Corman already spoke to that in terms of some of the challenges.

So I just want to uplift that as well as part of this conversation.

I certainly am always a big fan of improved coordination and collaboration between departments because when you are a member of the public, it doesn't matter what department you're at.

It's about whether or not our city services are working.

But I do just want to underscore that point that we already heard from central staff.

And I'm not sure if that question was directed to central staff, so I don't want to preclude you from responding and adding any further detail.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Kettle, we would be happy to work with your office on potentially crafting an amendment when this bill is before a full council that reflects those concerns and the opportunity for SPD data to come from SPD and SDOT data to come from SDOT.

That's one way we could potentially improve the function of the report that you're referencing.

and so thank you.

I'll say excellent, excellent, excellent point, Council Member Foster.

And I couldn't agree more on the underlying goal and principle involved here is that there are certain sensitive and private data and different parties have primary versus secondary responsibility.

Look, it's the city's responsibility.

Who cares if we have too much inter-department finger pointing and who's on first scenarios to begin with?

But I would generally support, if it wanted to clarify, to allow us to achieve our shared goals, and I think to contemplate the nuance involved.

I would support that.

I've learned in this process, it's often easier to just strike and remove.

The hard work comes with crafting language to contemplate the nuance.

So I welcome an opportunity if anyone wanted to do that.

But based off of the motion before us, I...

welcome any other conversation?

If not, we can vote.

Are those new hands?

I believe so.

Okay.

I've got a new hand.

Okay.

I'll go to Councilmember Kittle first, and then last word potentially with you, Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember, well, Chair and Councilmember Foster, As you know, my teams work with the various teams, so I'm looking to work with you as per Ms. Gorman's offering of a option, it's not her position, if you will, to vote no, but then work with you in terms of a, because I'm assuming the amendment's gonna pass, and then work with you to ensure that kind of piece, maybe some additional language modification, and just work together on it.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilmember Foster, you are recognized, potentially with last word.

Thank you so much, Chair, and Councilmember Kettle, you said the same thing I was going to say when I put my hand up, which is let's have a conversation after this and see if we can find a way, because like I said, I think we continue to have shared goals here, and we've made a few improvements by collaborating together, so I think we can make a few more.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

It's clear we're all trying to get to yes here and appreciate the collaboration here at the dais publicly, but also offline that I've had one-on-one with every last one of you all.

So thank you.

All right.

Any final comments before we vote on the pending motion before us with respect to amendment number 13?

Hearing and seeing none, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the motion before us?

Councilmember Foster.

Aye.

Councilmember Kettle.

No.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rank.

Yes.

Chair Sacca?

Nay.

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

All right, the motion passes and will be hereby included and adopted as part of the broader bill.

We will now move on to consideration of the final amendment in this agenda item one, this bill.

A motion, I think, would be in order.

Vice Chair Rank, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I move to amend Council Bill 121296, as presented on Amendment 16. Second.

All right.

It is moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 16, as presented.

Let's go ahead and actually start off the kind of visionary kind of framing from the sponsor, then we'll turn it over to central staff to explain the more technical aspects.

Thank you, Chair Sokka.

I was actually hoping for the central staff meeting first, if that's all right.

Whatever your preferred order, let's go.

Thank you.

Yeah, central staff, please.

Okay, Amendment 16, Version 1 to Council Bill 121296 is sponsored by Council Member Rink and co-sponsored by Council Member Foster.

So this amendment, just hearing the public comment, I think there were a lot of concerns from community that this amendment would, get rid of historic reviews in totality.

And I just want to clarify that this amendment focuses on the Traffic Engineers Authority, specifically over traffic control devices.

So traffic control devices, as defined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is standard guidance from the federal government, is specifically related to signs, signals, markings, channelizing devices, other devices that use colors, shapes or symbols, words or sounds.

All of this with the purpose of communicating regulatory warnings and guidance to anybody in the right of way.

It does not include bollards, which might be of interest to folks.

This is really focused on signs and signals and markings.

So the decision before you in this amendment is if you are interested in supporting the traffic control, or sorry, the traffic engineer's authority over these types of devices, or which would be a shift from the current volunteer boards and commissions, current review of these types of of these elements, which may be included in larger projects.

So again, just clarifying that larger projects will still go through the historic board review process.

And I think that's enough for now.

I'm happy to field any further questions.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate that overview.

Now I will turn it over to Vice Chair as the amendment sponsor.

You are recognized to speak to your proposal.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I appreciate it.

Colleagues, I think we all understand and, more importantly, feel the seriousness of this work and how the legislation before us is an opportunity to advance transportation safety efforts.

And as many know, this has been a priority for my office.

And just to lay out the stakes here very briefly, when I first met my fiance, one of the first things I learned about him was that he was a bike commuter.

And he also just loved to bike in his free time.

And shortly after learning that information, I learned about all of the near misses that he's had, the times he's been doored, the times he's been hit on our streets.

And so now, every day for years, during morning commute time and evening commute time, I hold my breath a little bit.

I feel a little anxious.

I worry about him.

And I know that's not a unique experience by any means.

And for too many families, they've had their worst fears realized.

We have lost too many lives on our streets, and to be clear, one is too many.

and in addition to the lives lost, I think about the lives changed due to injuries from car accidents.

So this amendment reinforces and elevates SDOT's authority to do essential transportation safety work in our right-of-way because when we're missing a key portion of our transportation safety network, that endangers all of us regardless of where the right-of-way is.

I want to be clear, I don't take the action of moving this authority lightly by any means.

In fact, I have deep respect for the work that historic preservation groups have done to preserve beloved places in our city.

I love the market, I actually shop the market often.

I was there this weekend, I got the best dino kale, just a little plug.

But I bring that up just to say, I wholeheartedly believe that there should be consultation and collaborative engagement between SDOT and our historic preservation groups and authorities.

That is why this amendment, as Central staff spoke to, is very narrowly tailored to a key element of authority, just allowing SDOT to be able to move forward with traffic control devices.

I hope we can agree that some things are just too important to subject to the Seattle process, and I believe traffic safety meets that bar.

I want to note that just while we've been in this meeting, a car has driven down Post Alley and is now stuck on the harbor steps.

I haven't heard an update on that.

I really hope they removed the car.

And we laugh a little bit about the silliness of that, but I think we need to be clear that something is not working.

And we're gambling with people's lives if we do not act to change it.

I've been told this amendment goes too far, but I dare to say the city has not gone far enough when it comes to preventing traffic deaths and injuries.

So I hope people hear today that my bringing this amendment forward is in response to the calls for decisive action that I've heard from families who have lost loved ones on our streets, our transit advocates, and everyone who has had too close of a call.

And I ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I appreciate your words here.

At this point, we'll open it up to comments and questions from my colleagues.

Starting first, in the order of hands raised, Council Member Foster, you are recognized.

That's an old hand, Chair.

Oh, old hand, all right.

Well, thank you, easy.

Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Rink, for the opportunity to speak to this.

A number of points I'd like to make.

First, yes, everybody is in agreement that we have to further our traffic safety, our pedestrian safety, our public safety.

That is clear.

I will say, though, that and note that Amendment 16 is a major amendment submitted just before committee.

I saw it first late yesterday afternoon, and I note our in-house counsel hadn't seen it this morning.

And I won't speak to the email that we all received at 10.09 specifically, but clearly there's issues related to the legal review.

In fact, I would say there's inadequate legal review of this amendment.

There's issues related to the Attorney's Office related to this amendment, and I would think that at a minimum we should have an executive session to speak to this amendment for the issues raised in the communication that we all received at an hour and 21 minutes ago.

This amendment is not a clarification amendment.

It is, again, a major amendment.

And I would note that the designated historic special review and landmarks are reviewed by community volunteer boards.

I served on a volunteer board, the Queen Anne Community Council.

But as you see, like with Pike Place Market, that is not a community volunteer board.

The Pike Place Market PDA is a preservation development authority.

and the Market Historic Commission is a legal and statute authority that's tied to the National Historic District.

So this is not just a little piece.

This is major legal pieces to address the challenges as it relates to the historic districts that are under law to include state law considerations and that we should be working through that.

So I wanted to note, too, and there's different examples.

My primary example is Pike Place Market.

I've been working that for three years.

Prior to some of my colleagues' arrival on the council, I pulled the previous administration's Pike Place plan because it was inadequate from the Seattle Transportation Plan in concert with Chair Saka and because it wasn't done right.

And what we've seen since then is how to do it right.

I've been working with the PDA exec, Rachel Littenberg, to create a truly open process with community, bringing in all the stakeholders to this, having all the various pieces come into play and have those sessions.

to move forward.

And we've made a very strong step forward to greater pedestrianization of Pike Place as part of the Pike Place Market that is also mindful and accounting for the very unique characteristics and needs of the market.

And we continue to do so.

And we need to do this right, and we need to do it in partnership with SDOT, but also with the historic districts that we have, like Pike Place Market.

and my commitment is to that.

I said it to the director of Seattle Streets Alliance during the break.

I said it to others as well and I am committed to that further pedestrian traffic safety improvements and processes as part of the overall public safety piece.

but given the legal challenges as listed in the communication that we received from our in-house counsel and concerning some of the challenges related to the City Attorney's Office review of this and some of the factors, again, to state law and so forth, Chair, I would, and Council Member Rank, I do believe that this amendment should be pulled, it should be looked at, and then we can bring it to full council on October 20th, where we work these pieces together, work the legal pieces, so then, you know, we can do this in partnership and in balance with the ultimate goal that everybody has, again, is to increase traffic and pedestrian safety across the board.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

I hear you expressing both substantive concerns with the proposal and potential legal concerns, and here's my commitment to you and everyone here at this dais and everyone in the public.

Irrespective of whether this particular amendment passes today as part of the amended bill, I will ask the council president to put this on, make sure this is not on the next available agenda for full council, which would be, I think, next Tuesday.

So we would have it at full council, the next available opportunity.

I think you mentioned that date, mid-October sometime.

But in any event, I appreciate the feedback.

Councilmember Lin, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

And if it does pass it, I think that makes sense, Chair Sacca, allowing that time to make sure that everyone gets their questions answered in any minutes.

Just a couple questions, I think, for central staff, if it's okay.

This amendment, I guess I just want to, my understanding and I'm not looking for kind of legal advice and I don't want to tread into that territory, but I'll just say in my interpretation of our code in general, just generally speaking, when there are federal laws or state laws that dictate something, we can't abrogate that with our local code.

And again, just want to speak in generalities, not specific to this proposal.

That is true.

OK.

And so just whenever I see a sort of proposed language, I always assume that if there's some other controlling law, that our law should be interpreted to be consistent with those whenever possible.

would that be sort of how we generally frame our municipal code?

Yes, and I will share with the council members that this morning I was made aware of implications in other sections of the code that had not been considered in consideration with this amendment.

Title 25 is not addressed here.

That's the title of the code related to the Historic Preservation Board.

I think if we move forward with this amendment, we would need to look at implications for that title.

That would need to be separate legislation because that is an entirely different subject.

Thank you.

Sounds like we'll have time to look into that, assuming this amendment passes.

Chair, I just want to make some comments.

will be supporting today with the understanding that we have time to look into these issues and if further amendments need to be made or addressed, that we'll have that opportunity to do so.

I think our office will have our own proposed amendments and thinking about the Chinatown International District in particular, given the history of how that district has, it's been considered one of the most endangered historic districts in the country and the impacts of past government actions and discriminating against that neighborhood.

I think we need to be especially cautious and to do deep engagement and consultation with at least the ISRD.

I can't speak to other historic districts that might be outside of District 2. What I'm hearing is alignment that public safety is critical.

and I think about public safety and my concern around is that I do think there's a way to do historic preservation and achieve public safety, but I do think at the end of the day, we need to have, the authority needs to lie with who is responsible and that is, in my opinion, the traffic engineer.

and so while I support deep consultation and that the traffic engineer should, whenever possible, take into consideration any recommendations and feedback so that it's consistent with the historic preservation, at the end of the day, the traffic engineer is responsible for traffic safety and we have seen in polling how traffic safety in recent years has been the number one public safety concern and there's good reason behind that.

I also think about we have CCTV cameras in the ISRD.

And to my knowledge, there was no special process for review of the CCTV cameras.

There wasn't a certificate of approval, to my knowledge.

I think there was just general outreach to the neighborhood.

and so that's just another public safety related issue and I'm not speaking in favor against CCTV cameras but I just think it's another issue where I'm not sure that cameras are consistent with the historic nature of the district but we have them in the CID.

If we're gonna talk about public safety and who has authority, I'm not sure why one would be different than the other.

And then finally, I'll just comment.

I think one thing that makes our historic district special is the strong pedestrian-focused nature of them.

And in many ways, these historic districts were built and designed prior to massive use of motor vehicles.

and again, what makes them special is the ability to feel sort of safe in these districts and to be able to, again, that strong pedestrian focus, to be able to be in community together.

And I think there's a real tension just with motor vehicles and especially as motor vehicles get larger and larger, that there is kind of an inherent conflict with vehicles driving down Post Alley.

And so it's a hard job, I think, for our traffic engineer to sort of make sure that we have safe systems, but also recognizing the historic nature of these districts.

So I just kinda wanna highlight that inherent tension there.

I do, I'm hopeful there's a way for us to achieve both.

Again, I'll be supporting today with a big caveat that we will be proposing probably our own amendments and certainly wanna work with colleagues here who have their concerns and I, and we'll work with the sponsors and hope that, I'm sure the sponsors will work with others as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lynn.

Council Member Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you so much Chair Saka and thank you to all of my colleagues for your comments on this really important amendment and I think we should also say I know a lot of folks spent time this morning coming down in person or still here or calling in online to share feedback on this and I want to express my appreciation for that as well.

I am really proud to be a co-sponsor of this amendment and I won't repeat the things that Council Member Rink or Councilmember Lin already said, but I will say I think both are really important.

I do believe that, as others have said, it's critical that we have clarity around the role of the city traffic engineer and their authority to make decisions around safety so that we can work towards the goals that we all share when it comes to traffic safety, public safety, and Vision Zero.

I also believe that it's really important that we ensure we have clarity around the role that the city has and our responsibility to share information with our residents and with our historic districts.

So I will be voting in favor of this bill, or excuse me, in favor of this amendment today.

And it sounds like Council Member Lynn and I may be heading in a similar direction.

I intend to bring an amendment to full council that commits SDOT to providing notification to the historic boards of significant changes to traffic control devices within the historic districts.

I believe in this way, we can ensure that we have clarity on the decision-making as well as clarity on the information sharing.

So Council Member Lynn, maybe our offices can collaborate on that moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Council Member Kettle, is that a new hand?

It's a new hand.

Sure, go ahead.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I respect the position, I respect the concerns 110%, and that's part of my work as chair of public safety, working all these pieces, particularly related to traffic pedestrian safety with my colleague, chair of this committee.

But from a duty as it relates to the legislative process, I am a little bit astonished that were looking at an amendment that was not seen by our in-house legal counsel until this morning.

That there was issues in the city attorney's office with its review.

There was no consideration of the state pieces, state law and the like.

Central staff has just said that they did not incorporate these pieces in their review of this amendment.

I'm just astonished.

And as it relates to stakeholdering, I don't think, obviously, Pike Place Market wasn't stakeholdered.

The Pioneer Square wasn't stakeholdered.

I tend to doubt that Chinatown International District was stakeholdered on this.

And as a side note, we did an incredible amount of stakeholdering and work related to our tech program the real-time crime center CCTV, and also the automatic license plate reader, 110% on that.

So with those three pieces, again, I'm a little bit astonished that, and I will call for an executive session ahead of the full council meeting to discuss this, and just discuss this process, the legal process, never mind the pieces of the subject.

but the legal process that we get here.

In fact, after this meeting, I'm gonna call the city attorney because it's unsatisfactory.

It's unsatisfactory.

At the end of the day, to close though, and you can see by my work-related Pike Place Market and work across the board in public safety, I too take very seriously and push forward the improvement of our traffic and pedestrian safety posture in this city to improve our public safety across the board.

Because it's important.

And that track record's there.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Before giving the last word to the amendment sponsor, I will comment from my perspective.

First off, I want to genuinely thank Vice Chair Rink for bringing this forward.

Reading the tea leaves here, I understand directionally kind of where we're headed, but I appreciate you for initiating this conversation that will no doubt continue over the next couple of weeks.

and I appreciate your collaboration offline.

We've had, you and I have had multiple conversations about this and the broader package over the last week and a half, two weeks, which I really, really do value and appreciate.

And I also regret not more closely engaging with my trusty vice chair in the mad sprint right before recess.

But we're aligned here, we're all on the same goals.

And I also wanna clarify and also clap back at any potential attacking of your motives or your character or anything associated with this.

I know you care deeply about our preservation boards and preserving the historic nature of these vibrant neighborhoods, eight of them to be exact, that would be impacted.

And so I want to clarify that.

And conversely, anyone that frames this as a false choice and historic boards are unduly roadblocking or preventing necessary and appropriate safety measures and resulting in people dying, that's not true either.

I think we need to have a more balanced, respectful, nuanced conversation and having had those conversations directly with the sponsor of this amendment, I know we're aligned on that point and I appreciate her work and her personal firsthand experience and we're all shaped by different things.

I'll say a couple of things.

One, as the I'm not even the champion of this, to be honest.

I'm just the council sponsor.

This is really community's effort.

This is community's initiatives, because all this does is codify three things that Seattle Streets Alliance asked for multiple agreed families and victims of traffic violence, have asked me in my office and our colleagues for when it comes to three things, truck side guard protections, mandatory vision zero reviews, and automatic day lighting.

So it does those things, so does the parallel executive order, and it does more.

It grants, and it's stronger.

It takes additional action.

It grants more power to the experts to do more.

It contemplates and codifies faster and puts this on a path for faster post-crash, post-fatality crash response policy.

The original and what I envision here is doing eventually a suite of packages to address traffic safety.

I kind of view this as phase one of safer streets.

I'm not opposed by the way to taking the underlying policy considerations up in amendment two in a subsequent and subsequent legislation or even in some but the original intent was to have for phase one to include and package those kind of low-hanging fruit items where there's generally more consensus.

And I heard this request, I mentioned last week, SDOT literally wrote certain provisions at my request.

as that literally wrote certain provisions in this bill at my request to help facilitate, streamline things.

And one of those proposed provisions, I accepted some, did not accept some.

One of those proposed provisions was this, and I declined to accept it for a reason.

I also heard demands from communities, the same communities we're partnering with to bring this to life who also wanted the same thing.

And I committed to them at the time, I'm not opposed to considering this, just not now in this package.

There are valid concerns here.

I'm just not convinced at this point that applying such a broad blunt force instrument would help us collectively achieve our shared goals.

I note that there are eight historic landmark districts in Seattle, within every council district, I believe, with the exception of D5 up north, and Council Member Lin might, I think might actually have two in his district.

And, This amendment, among other things, it involves substantive changes or implications to duties, powers, authorities of the respective preservations boards that roll up to another council committee because they are managed, operated, and organized by the Department of Neighborhoods, not this committee.

And it establishes a citywide exemption covering all eight historic landmark districts and the broad and undefined phrase currently spot design changes.

I would have supported and like to see, or could have potentially supported and like to see a more narrower application of this than you know, the kind of the broad applicability of this.

So a narrower, and I'm just spitballing here, literally on the fly, I'm just jotting down notes.

But some possible examples, maybe might be roadmaps for you colleagues, but some possible examples, no doubt there are others.

Instead of applying it to all eight historic districts, apply it to a narrow subset.

At a quick glance of the various maps and haven't done the proper GIS overlay, My quick interpretation is that only five of those eight are on what SDOT classifies as the high injury network.

Maybe consider that as an approach, as one starting approach.

I think we need to further narrow it as well.

potentially there's expedited review deadlines, emergency safety exceptions involving a particular crash or fatality, mandatory reporting mechanisms or mandatory coordination mechanisms with the various stakeholders, including the preservation boards, and where this, on the substance, unfortunately I can't support it today for those reasons, and where this falls short.

I think this different conversation in that last sentence there, it says the department or whoever may do X, Y, and Z, which is very permissive.

If that had said, the traffic engineer must or shall coordinate.

That's a different, that lands differently.

And combination of other things, I think we could workshop this a little more.

There are also some open legal questions, but I do appreciate the intent and spirit here behind this.

And we need to have tough policy conversations and be willing to do things up to and including this at some point.

I just don't think We've done the work and stake-holding to do that.

I know my constituents in Pioneer Square don't like this, even though I know they strongly support safety.

In any event, I do appreciate the amendment sponsor, and I will turn it over to you, Vice Chair, for last word.

Thank you for those remarks, Chair Saka, and thank you colleagues for your engagement on this as a policy concept and your consideration of this amendment today.

I will note for the record, part of the reason for calling for a recess earlier today was to give an opportunity for council members to speak to legal counsel, I'll note for the record, I myself was caught off guard after receiving additional feedback this morning, so I just wanted the record to reflect that.

But I believe this policy concept is important for us to consider weighing in today and to move forward with the vote today with a full understanding that there will be continued work between this committee and full council and so I appreciate council members Foster and Lynn for your commitment to working on amendments to bolster and ensure collaborative work with historic preservation districts and to incorporate any remaining feedback that we hear on the legal front.

There is an important role as well as a state and federal responsibility for our historic preservation boards and I believe that we can strike a healthy and the legally required balance on that matter.

and I will close with this.

I believe we protect and promote the vibrance of our historic districts when we make sure that people's experiences in them are safe ones.

Thank you, and I ask for your vote.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Vice Sherring.

All right, any final comments on the amendment before we proceed for a vote?

Hearing, seeing none, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the motion before us on Amendment 16?

Councilmember Foster?

Yes.

Councilmember Kettle?

No.

Councilmember Lin?

Yes.

Vice Chair Rank?

Yes.

Chair Saka?

Nay.

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

All right, the motion passes and will be included as part of the amended bill.

Now we have a fully amended council bill before us.

So, any final comments on the bill before us?

Councilmember Kettle?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the work that went into this, and I thank my colleagues for the amendments, like in the Chair package, for example, that do make it better.

And to highlight the issues, it is an important issue to highlight, Councilmember Rink.

And just to close on that, you mentioned our other colleagues, but my team and I, myself, will work with you and your team and our other colleagues, actually everybody here, on the issue because it's really important.

And we have to ensure a T's are crossed and I's are dotted across the board, which was mainly the point that I was speaking to.

But at the end of the day, again, it's gotta be a collaborative effort in order to improve our pedestrian and traffic safety posture in this city.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Lynn, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to thank all of you, especially you, Chair, for putting together this entire package.

I know there's a little bit of discord here on this last one, and I don't want that to take away from the incredible hard work and the alignment on everything else.

And again, just my commitment, even though I'm not the sponsor, but to work with the sponsors and to work with everyone else to find a path forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any final comments on this?

No?

Okay.

I'll just quickly close by saying thank you all for your strong collaboration and coordination here publicly and offline.

It's clear we're all rolling towards the same- we all have the same exact goals.

This, paired with the parallel executive order, makes clear that, you know, despite some of the broader distinctions and contrasts and differences of policy view that this body has, may have, with the executive at times.

When we think about issues of public safety, particularly on issues of public safety, but when we think about issues of public safety more broadly and then dive deeper into the issue of traffic safety, I hope it is clear to everyone, my colleagues, but especially members of the public, Council and the executive are squarely and directly aligned on the issue of traffic safety.

And, you know, we each have our respective authorities and powers to take action.

We're both exercising them, and neither is better nor worse than the other.

In fact, we're complimentary here.

And shout out to Mr. Brian Goodnight from Central Staff for putting together that very handy analytical crosswalk resource that kind of compares and contrasts in that Venn diagram approach that the vice chair was mentioning in the last meeting.

Thank you colleagues for your collaboration.

Hearing, seeing no final comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation to approve Council Bill 12196 as amended.

Council Member Foster?

Yes.

Council Member Kettle?

Aye.

Council Member Lin?

Yes.

Vice Chair Rink.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

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

All right.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council approve Council Bill 121296, as amended, will be sent to the full council.

Thank you, everyone.

Good news, folks, is the remaining two bills should move fairly quickly, but we needed to have that healthy conversation.

All right.

We will now move to our second item of business.

Will the committee clerk please call or please read item two into the record.

Agenda item two, briefing discussion and possible vote.

Council Bill 121297, an ordinance relating to traffic management and public safety, clarifying the authority of the city traffic engineer and amending sections 11.16.240 and 11.16.360 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you.

We will first move the pending bill before us and then we'll ask central staff to kind of brief it.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121297. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Central staff, please begin your presentation on the consent package of amendments and then I'll move the consent package.

or on the bill and the consent package.

Your choice.

The first amendment that we're considering today for Council Bill 121297 is Amendment 3. It is sponsored by Council Member Rink, and this amendment looks very much the same as the amendment we previously saw related to Council Bill 121297. It moves findings into recitals.

Thank you.

Same concept applies unless the amendment author wants to speak directly to the same thing from the earlier.

In the interest of time, I think it's fair to say reflective of earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

All right.

Okay.

Amendment 8, version 1 to Council Bill 121297 is sponsored by Council Member Rink.

This was discussed earlier.

Yes, that's true.

And it refers to amending the legislation to refer to a traffic safety plan rather than a Vision Zero plan.

Thank you.

Appreciate that, Amanda.

Same concept.

If you would like to be recognized, the vice-chair says, let's move.

All right, because the same principle applies and I support this.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay, Amendment 15, Version 1 to Council Bill 121297, also sponsored by Councilmember Rink.

This amendment would reflect that many employees within the Seattle Department of Transportation work on roadway safety and that it would not be feasible for one person to directly oversee all safety efforts.

It would also add in references to the types of projects this role may direct and expedite, this role being the traffic engineer.

And lastly, it would streamline language to improve readability.

Thank you.

Same thing, right of first refusal to the sponsor.

None.

Additional comments?

Self-explanatory.

All right, let's press.

And that is the end of this package for Council Bill 121297.

All right.

Thank you.

So we have a pending motion on the underlying bill.

Now, at this time, I move to adopt the consent package of amendments for Council Bill 121297. Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the consent package of amendments to this bill.

Is there any further discussion on the consent package?

Hearing C and none, will the committee clerk please call the roll on the consent package?

Motion.

Council Member Foster.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Sorry, I was looking for a council.

Aye.

Council Member Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rank.

Yes.

Chair Sacco.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

The motion passes and the consent package is adopted as part of the amended bill.

And I note that Council Member Foster is excused now for the rest of the meeting.

All right.

So now let us vote on the base bill as specifically amended by the consent package before us.

Are there any further comments on the bill as amended?

Hearing and seeing none, will the committee clerk please call the roll on adoption of the bill as amended?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rank.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

The bill passes and will be sent to full counsel for consideration.

Let's move on to the next item of business.

Will the committee clerk please read item three into the record?

Agenda Item 3, briefing discussion and possible vote, Council Bill 121298, an ordinance relating to city contracts requesting the development of new recommended requirements for truck lateral protective devices that would be applicable to city contractors, requesting consideration of recommendations for complementary safety equipment, and describing specific dimensions for all requested recommended requirements.

Thank you.

Let's see, let me go ahead and move Council Bill 121298 for adoption as presented on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

There's a motion that's been moved and seconded to adopt Council Bill 121298. Before we consider consent package.

I'll just turn it over to Central Staff.

Anything you want to just remind, overview about the high-level contents of the base bill?

The base bill requests that the City Department of Finance and Administrative Services, which manages the city fleets for all departments that do not manage their own fleets, develop recommendations for the mandatory use of truck lateral protection devices, also known as truck side guards, that would be applicable to all city contractors, subcontractors, vendors, and sub-vendors.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Now I'm going to move to adopt the Consent Package of Amendments for Council Bill 121. 298. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the consent package to this bill and item number three on the agenda.

Will Central Staff please brief the amendment package, consent package.

The first amendment in this consent package is Amendment 4 to Council Bill 121298. As we have seen with the other two bills discussed today, it would move the findings into recitals.

Excellent.

as before, give the sponsor Writer First Refusal.

And I'm hearing we already...

I saw per my last email.

So let's press to the next one.

Okay, Amendment 7 to Version 1 to Council Bill 1-2-1-2-9-8 is also something we've previously discussed.

Sponsored by Council Member Rink, amending the legislation to refer to a traffic safety plan rather than a Vision Zero plan.

All right, similar to before.

Sponsored, let's go for my last email.

What do we got?

Amendment 10 to Council Bill 121298 is also sponsored by Council Member Rink, to whom I apologize.

I forgot to reference her sponsorship of Amendment 4. And this amendment would correct some information that was inadvertently provided in error in the version of the bill as introduced.

This makes reference to a Seattle Department of Transportation requirement.

In fact, there is no such requirement.

There is keen interest, there is work moving the effort forward, but there is not a requirement today.

So this amendment would correct that reference.

Thank you.

Very highly technical, nitty-gritty, factual clarification only, but it still is a newer concept, unlike some of the others.

So we'll give you the opportunity, Vice Chair, if you wanted to speak to it or not.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

This is just an important technical correction, and I ask for your support.

Well, thank you for including it in the consent package.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And all right.

Amendment 11, also sponsored by Council Member Rink, is the last amendment in the consent package for this bill.

And this would make several changes to Council Bill 121298. First, it adds language acknowledging and referencing Executive Order 2026-05.

Advancing Safer Streets, Vehicles and Speeds, A Whole City Approach to Vision Zero.

That executive order was issued on August 19th.

subsequent to the finalization of the bill, then this just is cross-referencing the executive order in the bill.

Also, with respect to the recommendations that are requested by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services that I referenced in my overview of the bill, the amendment requests that the recommendations related to truck side guards encompass all trucks rather than just large trucks.

and the amendment also states the council's intent to use those recommendations in the future to explore potential requirements that would apply to all vehicles owned by city departments.

And there are also a couple technical corrections tucked in there.

Thank you.

We will turn it over to amendment sponsor to speak to her amendment if you still choose.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

This amendment, as was just spoken to, just is expansive.

And as I understand it through my conversations with you, Chair, aligns with your intent of making sure that we are expanding and doing this work in alignment with what was laid out in the executive order, but an opportunity to ensure that as FAS is engaging in this work, we're really looking expansively at across city fleets and contracted vehicles.

So I really appreciate this coming forward and being included in the consent package.

Thank you, Vice Chair, and couldn't agree more.

This is definitely in line with the original intent when it was crafting this package together with community, and it was, frankly, why it did not end up on the IRC version of the bill is just, actually, it's just an oversight error on my end, so thank you.

That's why complex work streams like this benefit from second set of eyes, so thank you.

All right, any other comments, questions?

on the bill before us as amended.

Hearing, seeing none.

All right, will the committee clerk please call the roll on adoption of Council Bill 121298 as specifically amended.

Introducing consent package first.

Oh, did we not vote on the consent package?

Sorry.

My bad.

There's a motion and a pending motion on the consent package.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll on adoption of the consent package before us?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rank.

Yes.

Chair Saka.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

The motion is adopted in the consent package for Council Bill 121298 is adopted.

Now let us vote on the or consider comments, questions and vote on the base bill.

as amended.

So is there any final comments on Council Bill 121298 as specifically amended?

Uh, Vice Chair Rink.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I'll be brief in the interest of time, but I wanted to take this opportunity since this is the last bill in the package of the SAFER Act to Thank you for your work on this.

I'm glad that we as the Transportation Committee are taking up legislative action to compliment the executive order.

And I'm glad that we as a committee and under your stewardship have made street safety a priority in front of the discussion.

So I really appreciate being able to take up this legislative action, really appreciative of you and all the members of this committee for their amendments.

iterating upon and ensuring that what we are ultimately passing helps bolster the work.

And so I just wanted to take this opportunity to express that gratitude and just thank you again, Chair.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair.

I, too, appreciate your partnership.

And let's see, Council Member Kettle, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

I just simply want to say it's important to pass the safer streets legislation to, at the end of the day, create safer streets.

I think it's really important for all of us to work in partnership as well with the executive to improve our public safety posture and specifically traffic and pedestrian safety.

So thank you for your work and thank you, colleagues, for the various amendments and the positions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council Member Kettle.

I do want to thank every last one of you.

I just want to confirm no other hands.

Okay.

I do want to thank every last one of you for your thoughtfulness and engagement and partnership, especially you, Vice Chair, for We've done a lot together over the last two weeks in particular and made progress.

Even on some of the areas and provisions of the bill where there's non-alignment, I think it's clear there's a shared understanding and path that we need to address some of those issues.

I hear a sense of commitment to do exactly that.

Again, remind everyone, my commitment is this will not be on Tuesday's full council thing.

So we'll resolve all the legal issues at a minimum so we can focus on potential policy issues only.

All right.

Thank you.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the bill before us as specifically amended?

Councilmember Kettle.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Vice Chair Rank.

Yes.

Chair Sacca.

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor and zero opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

The motion carries in the committee recommendation that Council approve Council Bill 121298, as amended, will be sent to City Council.

All right.

Interim Director Engstrom.

Aye.

been waiting patiently, and appreciate you and the mayor's office for allowing us.

Today is an important day for safety in our city, and it's an important day for civic culture and pride, because we have a duty now.

Well, I'll talk a little bit about that in just a moment.

But first, will the committee clerk please read item four into the record?

Agenda item four, briefing and discussion.

Appointment 03652, appointment of Randy Engstrom as director, Seattle Center, for a term to June 1st, 2030.

Thank you.

Welcome again.

In a moment, I will ask you to please introduce yourselves and begin your presentation.

But first, I want to note that today marks the beginning of our committee's critical evaluation of Interim Director Engstrom's qualifications, leadership approach and vision for the future of this major mission critical civic space and cultural institution for our city.

We intend to continue that conversation after budget with at least one more hearing before making our recommendation to the full council.

But today, let us have that initial conversation.

Welcome again.

When you're ready, introduce yourselves and then begin your presentation.

A little short.

Thank you so much, Chair Saka.

We're just gonna get this on the screen really quickly so we can get that done and then we'll go back to introductions.

Okay, good afternoon.

I'm so excited to be here.

My name is Amanda Pleasant-Brown, for the record.

I am the Director of Council Relations for Mayor Wilson.

Honored to be here.

And I'm pleased to introduce you to Randy Engstrom, Mayor Wilson's nominee for the Director of the Seattle Center.

To come to this decision, Mayor Wilson led an inclusive search process focused on identifying a leader grounded in culture, community, and civic vitality.

After extensive engagement with Seattle Center staff, stakeholders, and art leaders, Randy emerged as the clear choice, as you heard in public comment today.

His deep expertise in arts administration, civic policy, and community development set him apart.

Randy brings over 20 years of cultural and community development experience.

He served as the Director of the Arts of Office of Arts and Culture for eight and a half years across five mayors, expanding public arts, strengthening arts education, and increasing cultural space affordability and advancing racial equity.

He led major cross-departmental efforts, including affordability and livability, future of work, youth opportunity, and COVID recovery.

As co-founder and principal of Third Way Creative, Randy delivered significant cultural strategy projects, including the Office of Economic Development creating a downtown cultural recovery plan, the Washington State Department of Commerce helping shape the statewide creative economy strategic plan, and the Friends of Waterfront Park designing the cultural master plan with more than 150 stakeholders.

His consulting portfolio also includes national and international cultural strategy, work with the City of Ottawa and Western States Arts Federation.

Before study service, he founded the Youngstown Cultural Arts Center and Static Factory Media, launching innovative community and creative economy enterprises.

He teaches cultural policy as adjunct faculty at the Seattle University and lectures at the UW Evans School.

He is recognized with the Americans for Arts Emerging Leader Award and Puget Sound Business Journal's 40 Under 40. Randy's career brings arts, culture, sports, and entertainment and civic life experiences well aligned with the Seattle Center's role as a premier cultural and sports entertainment campus.

So, Mayor Wilson values Randy's proven ability to steward civic spaces, unite diverse voices through thoughtful, creative leadership.

He's a perfect fit for Seattle Center.

Randy brings a vision for Seattle Center as an inclusive cultural hub and a civic gathering space.

His experience will ensure both continuity and innovation during a period of major events and ongoing city recovery.

Thank you so much.

Randy's here to go through a quick presentation and answer any questions you have.

Good afternoon.

I'm Randy Engstrom.

I'm the acting director of the Seattle Center.

Thanks for having me today and having an opportunity to speak with you.

And thank you to the staff and supporters who made it through.

I really appreciate that.

And I appreciate all the really lovely comments from campus partners and others.

Let's see.

Oh, that's fun.

I tried that.

This guy.

Alright, I guess I'll start with my time at the Youngstown Cultural Arts Center.

In 2005, I was hired as the founding director by the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association, and we opened a pretty flagship cultural institution in District 1 in West Seattle in the Delridge neighborhood.

It's a 25,000 square foot facility, was home to five tenant resident organizations, operated a theater, a dance studio, a recording studio, a kitchen, and multiple classrooms.

and we serve thousands of people every year.

I learned a lot about community engagement and civic engagement.

We hosted many a city open house, transportation, housing, economic development.

We had a youth programming committee that would actually select the after-school programs that we would offer in partnership with our resident organizations like Arts Corps and the Service Board.

and we are also home to 36 affordable housing artist live work studios that were in the floors above the Cultural Center.

At the time that I was at Youngstown, I also was appointed to the Seattle Arts Commission by City Council Member Nick Licata.

and served six years on the commission.

And I think those years of working directly with community and directly with the Office of Arts and Culture, the council and the mayor, I learned a lot about how to advance policy and systems change from both of those vantage points.

That's also when I completed my graduate degree from the Evans School at the University of Washington.

I left that job because I was offered a pretty incredible opportunity to serve as the Director of the Office of Arts and Culture for the City of Seattle.

At the time, Arts and Cultural Affairs.

Incredibly proud of the work that we did there.

We took a $6 million department, which is now over $20 million.

We expanded our work in cultural space affordability, racial equity.

Through the Creative Advantage Program, we restored arts education to Seattle Public Schools over the span of 11 years.

and we renovated the King Street Station.

Shout out to Bill Laborde if he's still here.

In partnership with SDOT, we took a building that had been vacant for 30 years and turned it into a vibrant arts hub and also a new location for the offices for the staff.

It was a pretty incredible journey, the time that I was able to work at the Office of Arts and Culture, and I think that experience, maybe more than anything, is what makes me feel comfortable stepping into this job.

Many of the same people and many of the same systems still function not unlike the way that they did, and it was some of the most rewarding work I've ever done in my life.

I'm very proud of the fact that I was able to work with probably 30 different city council members and, as I mentioned, five different mayors.

I really pride myself on trying to be a person that can get along with just about anyone and find ways to build bridges.

I think that's important because that's also what the Seattle Center's role is.

The Seattle Center is the living room for everybody.

It's where our city comes together to mourn, to celebrate, to protest, and I think that's a really important role and it's a place we really need more of.

I'm glad that we expanded to take over the management and operations of Waterfront Park because I think that plays a similar role in our city.

In fact, that's where our staff is right now.

We're having a staff celebration event to thank them for all their work on FIFA and all their perseverance through the incidents of July.

And I think with the role of Waterfront Park and the role of Seattle Center hosting probably north of 20 million visitors this year between the two, we really are creating a space for the city to come together.

And that's been something that's been important to me my entire career.

I stepped away from the city in 2021, thinking that we were rounding the corner of the pandemic.

Little did I know.

I had the opportunity to do a lot of volunteer advocacy with the Biden transition team, with the NEA, with the Department of Labor, and that sort of catalyzed what started as a national and international consulting practice around cultural policy, creative economy, and racial equity.

working with, as was mentioned, the City of Ottawa, Grantmakers in the Arts, Americans for the Arts, Western States Arts Federation.

And then it was really through the Department of Commerce Creative Economy Strategic Plan that I did.

That was the first project that I did back in Washington because I sort of gave Seattle a time out for a few years after running a department for a long time.

It's good to take a break.

and from that project I wound up connecting with Friends of Waterfront Park who engaged me to collaborate with them on the development of a cultural master plan which is still a document that I'm really proud of and I deeply respect the work that Friends of Waterfront Park do.

I think that partnership is really an interesting model when we think about the future of the campus and how partnership is gonna be so central to that work.

and then through that work, I ended up doing a contract with the Office of Economic Development just a couple years ago around cultural strategies to revitalize downtown, sort of building on the downtown activation plan but bringing a more specific cultural lens and approach to it, thinking about things like special events and storefront activation and adaptive reuse of office space.

What's interesting is that a lot of that work is still alive and we're having a lot of those conversations now.

And it's interesting that the Downtown Seattle Association strategic plan features culture as the driver of downtown recovery.

And again, I think that's an interesting role that the Seattle Center can play.

We're physically connected to the middle of the city via a monorail.

We're physically connected to the center of the city via the waterfront.

What other spaces might Seattle Center be able to animate, activate, and bring its sort of cultural presence to?

I think there's a lot of opportunity there.

And so I feel like my time away from the city sort of helped me prepare for this role in a different way.

I'm approaching this job in three ways, honoring the past, delivering on the present, and building the future.

And in thinking about honoring the past, next year, it'll probably be the most important year in the campus's history since the World's Fair.

We are celebrating our 65th anniversary of a campus, our 50th anniversary of the foundation, and they've been just incredible partners for the entire six months that I've been there.

and 30 years of Festall, really the ballast of the ship, the heart of the campus as a program that celebrates Seattle's great cultural diversity across 25 different cultural communities.

So that is from where we start.

We start with an understanding of the role this campus has played for the last 65 years.

And I've never met a person in my 32 years in Seattle that doesn't have a core memory from that campus, from some event or activity that they attended.

It's certainly where I've spent the most time with my 11 year old daughter.

Delivering on the present has to start with recognizing the incredible work that's been happening.

You heard my friend and collaborator Rob Johnson talk about the strategic vision and 10-year action plan.

A big team of staff, of stakeholders, of foundation partners developed this plan that involves significant private fundraising, significant public investment to meet the infrastructure needs of an aging campus, and really innovative approaches to the business and economic model of the campus itself.

I will say that there's not many departments that earn 70% of their own budget via earned income activities.

And I think that social enterprise function is really important.

It's one of the things that allows us to be nimble.

And there's a lot of stuff that we wanna do that should be free and for the community.

And so we're trying to find that balance all the time.

That's what the 10 year plan's about.

As a picture here of Memorial Stadium, I get to walk past it every single day.

It's so exciting to see it coming out of the ground.

And again, another example of just incredible partnership, the school district, our friends at One Roof, and the city together, centering young people, thinking about that building as a living classroom.

and I'll talk more about that in a moment.

But Memorial Stadium is gonna be a game changer for the Seattle Center campus.

It's gonna bring so much more activity, more sports, more young people, more events and concerts.

And the physical design is really, really thoughtful.

The giant monolithic concrete wall goes away, but the historic memorial wall is restored and preserved.

And we have sight lines through and across the campus and gateways that connect the Memorial Stadium's footprint directly into the heart of the Seattle Center and the fountain.

We're renovating the monorail platform starting now Construction begins the monorail platform at the campus and I mean I bring up the monorail only because it's I didn't know that I was the appointing executive of a transportation system and I didn't know that three million people a year ride the monorail And it's the only non-subsidized transportation system in Washington state.

It's an amazing and very hard-working system and I'm excited to see what we can do with it and then you know Rob mentioned this earlier.

There were some high highs, right?

The World Cup was incredible.

We saw a million visitors to the waterfront.

We saw a million visitors to the Seattle Center.

It was really a coming out party for the city in a way that I couldn't be more proud of.

And then we had the events at the Bight of Seattle.

I don't think good times are when leadership is tested I think it's when things are hard and Councilmember Kettle I appreciated seeing you that night on site the night of the of the bite incident and I just want to say how proud I am of the work of our staff both in the moment and in the days and weeks since as we try to learn from that horrific tragedy improve our systems strengthen in particular our communications and and continue to be a place that people feel like they can come back to we held a conversation yesterday with about 50 of our campus partners where we walked through our entire after action review and the implementation plan related to all the recommendations of that report.

And we made a commitment to them that we're gonna learn from this, we're gonna grow from this, and we're gonna get better.

And I think the fact that we've only seen about a 1% decrease in attendance year over year from the bite to now tells us that people do trust the campus.

they do want to come back.

We saw a thousand people at the Princess Bride.

We saw a sold-out KEXP barbecue.

We saw more stay in the time at Sundiata.

And we saw a really successful bumper shoe, one of our most successful in decades.

So it's about delivering on the present and meeting the moment even when the moment is incredibly hard.

And it's about building a future.

there is no more important conversation than the conversation about the aging infrastructure that was designed for a world's fair 65 years ago.

And with that opportunity, not just to decarbonize the campus, not just to modernize it, not just to deal with ADA seismic and HVAC issues, but to think about what a Seattle center of the next 65 years can look like How does it best serve the needs of the city as it is today and will be in the future while honoring that past?

And the ballot measure that we hope to see come forward for the joint resolution that Councilmember Saka offered, that's the ballgame.

The ability to bring that moment forward, have that conversation with the city and ask the voters to invest in our future, our shared future, is the most important thing I'll do in this job for as long as I have it.

I also want to borrow a phrase from my friend, Todd Lewicki, who was kind to speak earlier.

We were in a meeting, Council Member Saka, you were there, talking about our hopes for the NBA and the future.

And it was about four days after the bite shooting, three days after the bite shooting, and Todd was talking about Memorial Stadium, and he said, what happened that day, what those young men did was evil, but I don't hate those young men.

If they had a different choice they could have made that day, if they had different options available to them, what might have happened?

What if Memorial Stadium existed?

What if there was a living classroom that those young people could connect to?

and I borrowed that living classroom metaphor because I really think that's the future of the campus.

We have the center school, several hundred kids come to school every day.

We have Memorial Stadium coming online, maybe not even a year from now.

We've been talking to the skill centers and the career tech ed folks at the district.

What would it look like for the entire campus to be a living classroom?

what would it look like to connect our public school students here in Seattle to the 19,000 jobs that exist on the campus, the overwhelming majority of them living wage union jobs.

We work with 10 different unions very proudly.

I really think that $70,000 a year, four-year college might not be in the cards for everybody, but every kid that lives in this city can take one bus and be at the Seattle Center.

And if we can help them find ways to connect their passion and their dreams and their excitement to careers in a meaningful way where we're able to help sustain them, I think that's what the future of Seattle Center can look like.

In addition to the focus on young people, this work that we've explored with Waterfront Park that we're seeing expansions in this coming year, what might be possible for the Seattle Center to bring its mix of programming, economic and cultural activity out to more places in the city?

Maybe that's contributing more to a conversation about downtown revitalization.

Maybe it's about a deeper partnership with the school district where Festall programming can be brought out to every middle school in the city Maybe we can get every middle schooler in the city a ticket to the Space Needle So every kid that grows up here can see that vantage point But I want to bring more of what the Seattle center is to more people in more places I think the staff is excited to do that.

I think that that's something that the city deserves and I think I just In closing, I want to say I've felt so incredibly embraced by the staff, and I mean from the janitors to the executive leadership, I feel so supported by the partner organizations on campus, and it is through our work together, through our collaboration, through our shared engagement with our community that we're going to build that future that is going to sustain Seattle Center and the city writ large for years to come.

I'm deeply grateful for everyone who gave their time today.

I'm deeply grateful to the mayor for trusting me with this responsibility and I'm happy to answer any questions that the council might have.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Pleasant-Brown and Interim Director Engstrom.

Appreciate your overview and, you know, kicking off, helping us kick off this conversation.

I will briefly frame this a little bit then before I turn it over to my colleagues, starting first with my Trustee Vice Chair.

First, I'll say that, just remind colleagues that we have a solemn very important charter responsibility now to thoughtfully consider the proposed, the mayor's proposed nominee to lead this critically important department, which is more important now more than ever for reasons mentioned and so many more.

And I know you all will take this endeavor very seriously and ask thoughtful probing questions along the way and give the proposed nominee a fair shot.

And I just want to kind of share What I'm kind of looking for, from my perspective as the chair that oversees this committee and is stewarding this process, but ultimately one of five and ultimately one of nine voices on the matter, I'm really looking for three things.

Three skills, attributes, indicia of success, if you will, First one is, from a technical perspective, this, to your point, Interim Director Engstrom, on we are going to next year propose a package of some sort, likely a bond measure, to completely renovate and reimagine the Seattle Center.

We're going to do that, 100%.

I already wrote it up.

And I know the mayor's office is hard at work implementing on her side.

And we're aligned and together on that.

But from a technical perspective, the leader of this department is going to be directly responsible for overseeing the planning, scoping, design, stakeholdering, and ultimately proposing a measure, a package to put before city decision makers, both the executive and us on the second floor with the ultimate goal of potentially implementing all this and doing that end to end.

very complex technical stuff.

That's a huge, that's a tall order.

So I'm gonna be kind of assessing for that kind of competency from a technical perspective.

Also from a, secondly, from a collaboration perspective.

Underlying all that work I just described is, or the cornerstone of success underlying all that work is collaboration.

Gonna succeed, or fail, whether you succeed or fail in this role is gonna hinge on your ability to collaborate.

Gonna have to build influential relationships with, and I know you already have a lot, you're gonna have to build more across communities, diverse communities, not just in the center.

Drive alignment, work towards shared goal, shared vision.

Collaborate across those differences.

Yeah, but your ability to collaborate, critically important.

And the third and final thing is, I'm gonna be evaluating is the degree to which you as a director would prioritize or continue to prioritize public safety.

Public safety is of paramount importance.

We just fulfilled, well, took the next step in our journey.

It's a journey, not an end destination.

And our mandate to keep people safe on our roads a moment ago by passing that package of three safety bills, traffic safety bills.

But more broadly, public safety is our highest priority here within the city.

And that responsibility trickles down through all levels of government, especially the department heads.

and the tragic incident that happened in July reminds us that with respect to Seattle Center, there's some great work that was done by folks at the Seattle Center from the janitors to just everybody.

It wasn't just frontline rank and file heroic SPD officers who responded, and they did that too, or fire department personnel, or care department call takers, 911 call takers who showed up, bravery, they did all that, yes.

It was across departments, and yes, including Seattle Center.

We also learned that there's opportunities for improvement, and potentially, I would like to see security cameras at at Seattle Center.

I know all the major event organizers sent that letter to the mayor and council about a month ago.

I think that's an important part of the conversation that we're gonna continue to have.

I think we need it.

But regardless, putting aside some of those specific features or elements of a broader approach and set of priorities to address public safety just Your approach and readiness to promote public safety at the center is critically important.

So, that said, I will now open it up to comments and questions from my colleagues, starting first with Vice Chair Rank.

Thank you Chair Saga and thanks for hanging in there, Interim Director Engstrom.

I know it's been a hefty meeting with a lot to cover and I wanna thank you as well for your presentation and I'm happy to share that in your presentation you actually touched on a number of the questions I was planning to ask you today as we initiate this process.

But I did wanna jump to one in particular, because intern director, I noted in your previous director role with the city of Seattle under a few different mayors, that in addition to leading the department, you've also facilitated executive cabinet meetings and shared several sub cabinets.

So could you speak to your approach of working within and across executive departments to advance civic priorities and how you would envision that approach extending to the legislative branch?

Yeah, for sure.

I mean, I think the chair's point about collaboration to me is the most central feature of successful governance on the executive side.

No department can fix this city on its own in a silo.

And so when I chaired the Good Governance subcabinet or the Affordability-Livability subcabinet or the Future of Work subcabinet under Mayors Murray and then Durkin, It was really about building trust and relationship, first and foremost.

We have to understand that we have shared goals and that we have a shared, kind of like you all just did with the Vision Zero work.

You all have the same end result that you want to see.

You have different tools, tactics, and resources to try to get there.

But how do we align our work around shared goals?

I'm a big believer in collective impact.

That's how we restored arts education to Seattle Public Schools.

We had a shared goal.

but autonomous work streams by which to advance that shared goal across schools, nonprofits, unions, parents, teachers, principals, administrators.

It's a similar approach with interdepartmental work.

And I actually think cabinet retreats, I did run the cabinet retreat with Chief Scoggins back in 2019. I think that you have to really be able to have the bandwidth to go deep.

We're all tracking a million things on any given day.

You think you're on track for something and then there's a tragic incident and things reset and you have to adapt.

So I think what you build when you have a lot of trust and relationship across different departments is a lot of resilience.

And one thing that we did when I was at the Office of Arts and Culture, we were fortunate to have a lot of growth in the admissions tax, which sustains that office via budget.

And we saw that some of our other departments weren't able to grow as quickly, so we funded shared positions in those different departments.

We shared the cost of a position in the Economic Development Office and the Transportation Office.

to try to figure out how we could creatively problem-solve together.

I think no department can do the work alone, but the more of us can figure out how to move together, the farther we're going to get.

I'm seeing early signs of that with the planning for our future sub-cabinet led by Rico Kirindongo.

There's some really interesting collaborative work coming out of that.

I hope that I'm able to contribute more to that.

I didn't realize until I came back into this job that I have a lot of years doing this kind of work.

And so a lot of my fellow directors are brand new.

They've never run a department before.

How can I support them?

How can I be a resource to them?

What can I do to avail myself so their work can be stronger?

And at the end of the day, with Seattle Center in particular, It's the place everyone goes.

So how do we feature, highlight, celebrate, platform all of the work of government?

If City Light's doing innovative solar work and we're working on decarbonizing the campus, how do we make that known to the whole world?

If Puget Sound Energy is doing thoughtful water reclamation work, how do we make sure that when you come to the campus, you see the buildings, you see the performances, you see the artwork, but you also see the work of city government?

We're one of the only places where you can actually interact with and engage government directly.

Most of what happens in government happens in SMT or City Hall, and it's not something that citizens can touch and feel most of the time.

So let's be a place where people can come and interact with their government in real time and experience its values.

and I do want to note for the record my appreciation to hear some of the folks come out today to speak on your behalf in support of your appointment, including folks from the Space Needle, the Kraken.

I don't think I've ever seen the leader of the Kraken team before.

And then, of course, Seattle Center Foundation.

With that, Chair, I'm going to cap my questions for today, understanding that we are just embarking on this process.

And interim director Engstrom, I'm just very excited to continue on this process and learn more about your goal for leadership over Seattle Center.

Thank you.

and other things.

Thank you, Vice Chair, well said.