Seattle City Council Sustainability & Transportation Committee 121219

Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

My name is Mike O'Brien, chair of the committee.

I'm joined by Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you for being here today.

Today is Thursday, December 12th, 2019. It's 1.04 p.m.

This is going to be the last committee meeting of the year.

by proxy, that'll be the last committee meeting for me.

I'll be at the full council on Monday, but we've got quite a few things on the agenda today.

So I'm gonna walk through the agenda and then we'll move to approve that, but I'm gonna table one item.

The agenda shows an appointment to the Levy to Move Seattle Oversight Committee, but that individual was not able to attend today.

And so in a moment, I'll ask to amend the agenda to move that.

We have an appointment to the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board.

We have a report from the Seattle Department of Transportation on the Transportation Benefit District operations.

Then we're going to get a report on the Vision Zero and Pedestrian Master Plan.

We will consider a resolution to to look at legislation in the future around the Community Benefit Ordinance.

Then we will have a discussion with some community members about the Green New Deal, reflecting a little bit on the work that's been done this year, and talking about what's gonna happen next.

And then finally, agenda number seven is a Farewell Councilmember O'Brien, I believe it's a video.

I have not seen it yet.

So my staff has been working on this and I'm excited to see that.

And then I want folks to know that at 4 p.m.

down in Bertha Knight Landis, the room right below us, there is a celebration for the three current council members who will be leaving at the end of the year and then Councilmember Pacheco who left a month ago.

And anyone in the public is welcome to attend that.

This committee meeting will hopefully be done by 4, but it may run a little longer.

We'll see how we go.

So I'll start by moving to amend the agenda to table appointment 01527 until the next meeting of this committee.

Thank you.

I guess all in favor say aye.

Aye.

And now I'd move to approve the agenda as amended.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

So we have an agenda before us that now has six items instead of seven and we'll move on to public comment.

Folks will have up to two minutes to provide public comment and we'll work through this list and then we'll jump into agenda items.

I should mention being staffed today by Kelly.

Thank you for being here, Kelly.

Looks like we have about 20 folks signed up.

So we'll go through about 10 to 2 minutes, and then depending how timing is and how much people are talking, we may shorten that a little bit just to make sure we don't go too long.

But Laura Lowe Bernstein's first, then Elena Perez, and then Emily Johnston.

Hello Councilmembers and first I want to thank Councilmember Mike O'Brien for your service and you will be missed.

Next, I want to say I'm here to support Orca for All.

I organize with a group of Seattleites called Share the Cities, and I tweet at Share the Cities.

And Orca for All is a first step to acknowledging the link between access to free transit and who participates in our transit systems.

When people make the choice to switch from a car to transit, there's a lot of factors.

Our city should be doing all we can to eliminate any real and perceived barriers people have to choosing transit more often.

And as you all know, the same communities who are most impacted by climate change are most impacted by not being provided a transit pass by their employer.

That's why we need to move towards employees getting a subsidized transit pass.

I am more likely and have been more likely to take transit when I've had a subsidized pass and more likely to drive my car when I didn't.

My best friend Heather transit pass eliminated at work earlier this year as part of some corporate belt tightening.

This made them decide to purchase a car.

It also means that they're not taking transit on the weekend with their child and decided to drive everywhere because they do the cost calculation of six bucks round trip, the time it takes on a bus, and they've made the decision partially because of the transit pass being eliminated to take their car.

And it's not just not having a pass that makes people choose to not drive or to drive, but it's a big, big factor.

We want to make sure that lower paid workers have an employer pass, not just higher paid workers.

We want to make sure that half of Seattle's rising emissions come from passenger transportation, and this is a really good way to address the climate emergency.

And mobility is a human right.

We should be moving to transit free for all one day.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laura.

Helena?

Hello.

Is this one OK, too?

Oh, great.

My name is Elena Perez.

I'm with Puget Sound SAGE organizing director.

And I just want to share our experience with transit at SAGE.

We're a nonprofit organization of 15 employees.

And all of our employees have a fully paid for unlimited ORCA pass as part of our employment.

And we are a small nonprofit organization.

in this city.

It's important because I have colleagues who don't own cars, and the only way that they can have the opportunity to work with us and get to meetings and do what they need to do in the city is with transit, and also because this reflects our values.

This is really what we're about, and it's important, not just for us, but for others.

So we very much know that we can do it and know certainly that large employers can do it as well.

So what we're asking of the city in support of ORCA for All is to require all, at least large employers, to subsidize transit for their employees, and that means full-time.

part-time, seasonal, temporary, and contractors that are required for whatever they need to happen, such as janitorial construction otherwise.

And we expect this to be part of a path to creating free transit for all.

It's the right thing to do.

If we're even going to consider congestion pricing, it needs to be coupled with free transit for all.

And this is important because right now the public is subsidizing all of our transit that private employers rely on day in and day out.

And it's done through regressive taxing.

And it's about time that large employers and employers overall pay their fair share towards this.

We need to end criminalizing poverty and criminalizing people who just need to get around the city.

The way to do that is free transit for all and this is an important step.

And thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.

On behalf of SAGE, we will deeply miss you.

Emily, you're gonna be followed by Lee Bruch and then S.D.

Mintz, maybe?

And then T.C.

Halverson.

Hi there.

Excuse me.

Emily Johnson with 350 Seattle.

Mike, first of all, just definitely want to say thank you for everything.

I think we could all spend the entire afternoon saying that, and it still feels as though there is a lot left to be unsaid.

So we're really going to miss you.

I support ORCA for All and we as an organization support ORCA for All because transit is a critical equity issue and also a critical climate issue.

We cannot possibly meet even our existing climate goals, let alone the ambitious Green New Deal style goals that we've all agreed we need to meet without vastly increasing the use of transit in Seattle.

And business needs to help us do that.

In addition to the fact that they just generally have a responsibility, as we all do, to be part of the solution, big businesses in particular, especially when they bring in high-wage workers, completely change the landscape of housing and of congestion in our city.

And they need to help mitigate those impacts that they have.

And, you know, it's also true that, you know, we do need, I believe, congestion pricing.

But in order to make that equitable, we have to have free transit and it has to be available to all.

So it's really important that businesses support free transit.

for higher wage workers because that actually really helps people feel invested in the transit system and those folks are more likely to demand better service or in the same way that we have Medicare for everybody.

We need to have free transit for everybody.

But of course, if we don't also have free transit for low-income and middle-income workers, what happens is we're just increasing the dystopian inequality that we already have.

So it's really essential that it's for full-time employees, it's for part-time employees, it's for all employees, at a minimum for medium and big businesses, and really ideally for everybody, and subsidized at 100%.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Durkan, members of this committee, and especially retiring Chair Michael Bryan, City Council, and SDOT for your leadership and your response within the last several days to Seattle's traffic safety crisis.

I'm disappointed in SDOT's pledge to implement $2 million in capital investments for the Aurora Safety Corridor project in the years 2020 through 2024. A couple of years ago, local citizen groups had to fight hard to get grants for one pedestrian signal at 92nd and some other minor improvements for slightly over $1 million.

That's about one half of SDOT's four-year pledge.

This year, WSDOT spent $19.6 million to repave Aurora.

$2 million spread over four years pales against that.

But I heartily welcome SDOT's pledge to launch a planning study for Aurora belatedly in 2021. to develop a long-term plan for Aurora Avenue.

I earnestly hope it comes to fruition.

Seventeen years ago, on August 8, 2002, Mayor Nichols announced a similar major study for Aurora.

The study was completed long ago.

But like many other studies before and since, it languished through Mayors Nichols, Mayor McGinn, Mayor Murray, Mayor Burgess, and now Mayor Durkin.

No major improvement was ever implemented.

And this year, Aurora has suffered seven deaths, six of them pedestrians, in six fatal crashes.

I hope that this new commitment finally bears actual edible fruit and that it is implemented within the 10 or 20 years I have left in my lifetime.

And that the Pedestrian Unsafe 1950s Highway is at long last transformed into a 21st century city street oriented to serving people and its neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lee.

Is it, sorry, is it SD?

Thank you very much.

I would just like to talk a little bit about Orca for All and the importance of providing access to public transport to all employees.

I've, and I just wanted to describe a little bit of my private, my personal experience in this matter.

I've been riding buses in Seattle for many, many years, and I've seen the difference between ridership Regular ridership before any of those discounts started.

I've seen what happens to buses around the University of Washington when they started providing their free Orca cards to students.

I've seen what happened to that.

Now ridership is very, very busy.

There's no need for people to use their private cars and hopefully that will improve.

the streets around.

I've seen what happens at Microsoft when everybody got free Orca cards, or at that time, it was before Orca, free transportation, free bus pass.

All of a sudden, a lot more people started using the buses.

Microsoft was able to build smaller parking lots, and some of the traffic was alleviated.

Seems to me that everywhere passes are being offered, It's much easier for people to ride in, to use public transportation, less cars on the roads, less parking, less huge parking lots everywhere.

The benefits are enormous.

So I'd just like to encourage you to do it so we can provide it to lower wage workers as well as to people like workers, like people who worked at Microsoft and students.

Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you for being here.

And I hope that will happen.

Thanks.

Work on it for sure.

MC Halverson is next.

You'll be followed by Kimberly Kinchin, then Scott McClay, and Bobby Carlton.

Yes, my name is MC Halverson and I've testified before.

I'm talking about Vision Zero.

When Vision Zero was initiated, it was Director Kugle who referenced the Washington State Highway Safety Commission's report that said that while accidents between trucks, freight trucks, and pedestrians slash bicyclists was only 5%, it accounted for 45% of the fatalities.

And the recommendation was that you keep freight trucks and bicycles, pedestrians apart.

I thought that's what you were doing with Vision Zero.

However, there is a proposal from SPU down in the industrial area where they call it the South Park Pump Station.

It's actually in River Park, but South Park likes to get their name on things.

whereby they are going to put in this huge recreation lot.

Now, the zoning down there prohibits it.

Vision Zero would prohibit it because there's many, many freight trucks and lots of very high-end equipment, cranes, lift trucks.

It's not an area for recreation.

And as I say, the zoning prohibits it.

But I have here a copy of the plat for South Riverside Drive, and I'll leave it with you, so that you can see who owns what in that area.

I have a copy of their proposed development, which shows that they think they still have the legal description before the river was straightened.

Before the river was straightened, these two lots and the road end were on the river.

But when they completed the straightening of the river in 1915, they were no longer on the river.

So they're claiming that they own something they do not.

I have been at the road end was on the river.

And when the river was straightened, SDOT made no claim that that was a road at any time.

Now 104 years later, they came back and say, oh, that's a road end.

We're going to put something in there.

So I'll leave a copy of their plan.

I've been in touch with SDOT, and the person there, after I emailed him, he said that he was turning it over to the SDOT legal team, and that they would be in touch, but I have not heard anything further from them.

If their legal team knows any law, they know I'm right.

And I have the legals of the...

Your time is up, MC, but if you want to hand that to Kelly...

These are now the legals, so it goes with the...

It goes with them.

Great.

Thank you.

Kimberly.

That's great.

Great.

So I know I'm supposed to be respectful, but I'm a little bit upset, so I'm just going to say that it's really interesting to think about which District 4 candidates showed up to candidate forums about transportation and sustainability, which ones didn't, and who's here today.

My name is Kimberly Kinchin, and I'm a resident of Capitol Hill who can't drive, so I depend on transit and biking and walking wherever I travel.

I only initially planned to come to this meeting because it's Mr. O'Brien's last committee meeting, and I wanted to thank him for all of his work to make our city better for everyone.

I think that you really do that every day, and it's really visible, and so I thank you.

You're a light.

You really are a light in a time that It feels like it's getting a little bit dark.

But it turns out my friend Ace couldn't make it and he did have comments about Orca for All, so I'm gonna be here in his place.

His real name is Andrew Grant Houston.

So here's what Ace would like you to consider about Orca for All.

According to the United Nations, we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 7.6% annually to meet our climate goals.

In Seattle, that means reducing our emissions through transportation, because I think that's our biggest source of emissions.

So getting more people to use transit is the fastest solution to hitting our goals for next year.

The other thing that he would like you to consider, and this is probably also a little bit for the TRU folks in the room to think about, is to think about creating a system where freelancers get pre-tax ORCA passes.

Ace works on his own, and that would reduce his current costs.

He says that his last job he paid only $34 for the $99 pass that he gets now.

And if there are any other like former freelancers in the room like myself, you know that could actually make a pretty big difference.

And I guess my time is up.

So again, thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Thanks, Kimberly.

Appreciate you being here.

Scott?

Hello, my name is Scott McClay.

I work with 350 Seattle.

I'm here to encourage you to pass ORCA for All, the big business component, first.

ORCA for All, as people have said, I want to reiterate, is an equity issue and also a climate change issue.

And I want to mention the vision.

We're up against a very hard rock for climate change.

My vision is that we have to get rid of cars.

So at some point in the not too distant future, we will not have cars as a normal thing, and transit will be the way we get around.

And that will be a beautiful vision, because we will be much more walking, biking, busing.

There will be a much more community-based feeling.

And I can't go into it, but it will be a beautiful vision of a much more relaxed, reduced pace.

I say we can't have cars because we're in the sixth mass extinction, and we can't keep mining the earth for creating electric cars for everybody.

And I also want to take this moment to really thank Councilmember O'Brien, especially for his work on the Green New Deal.

From what I've heard secondhand, it's been amazing.

and we are much farther along in pushing the Green New Deal than I ever expected, and I look forward to pushing next year with the Council, and we'll miss you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Scott.

Bobby?

Bobby, you're going to be followed by Karen Taylor and then Harry Marher.

And after Karen, I'm going to lower the time to a minute and just ask folks to try to shorten their comments, just so we can hopefully get through all the agenda item before folks have to run out of here.

Go ahead.

Yeah, pop.

Yeah, my name is Bobby.

I'm speaking in favor of Orca for All today.

I'm actually visiting from Olympia, where our Transit agency, Intercity Transit, recently decided to eliminate fares system-wide starting January 1st.

And I was part of some of the advocacy work surrounding that effort through the organization Olympia Assembly.

And a component of that work was bus rider outreach, just riding all the buses and talking to hundreds of bus riders about what fare-free would mean to them.

And in my estimation, about 97% of riders supported fare free, or at least very intrigued by the idea.

And most riders expressed pretty similar reasons for supporting it.

whether it was from heightened mobility, increased access to employment, housing, services, cultural activities for low income and marginalized residents to mitigating the climate crisis and other social consequences of driving.

And also other issues popped up like people were noting that Fair collection is actually an important workplace safety issue in the United States.

Majority of driver, rider altercations result from fare collection.

So eliminating fares, or at least providing a free or subsidized pass, is a workplace safety measure for transit operators.

And so, ORCA for All is not quite fare free, but it's an important step in that direction, and I think that I think that the benefits that we expect to see in Olympia could also be generated by Orca for All here in Seattle.

So, yeah.

Thank you, Bobby.

Karen?

Hi.

Yeah, my name's Karen.

First, I wanted to thank you for all you do.

The main thing is just, it seems like you're listening.

You look at us, you make facial expressions that respond to what we're saying, and then you do stuff based on that information, which seems like the lowest possible bar, but you'd be surprised when I'm here at Council, especially in hearings, but in these meetings too, it must be hard.

It's hard to listen for a long time, so thank you.

As always, I'm a proud member of Transit Riders Union, but I speak for myself.

I go with my dad back and forth a lot to hang out with my family on the east side.

He has some mental health issues that make it really obsessive about traffic.

It's kind of like road rage or whatever.

And so when we go together, when I don't, I don't drive.

So when we go together, it's like a bad way to start the, why am I at zero?

You get one more minute.

Sorry.

Oh, it's a bad way to start our interactions together.

And I always just picture like going, I just picture going on a train or something, either with him or alone.

I can see the positive vision of it.

And the other thing is, the reason businesses should pay for work for all is because the way it works is they take our bodies and our time to make money.

And another way they take our bodies and our time is when we're commuting.

And if folks could be on the bus, like they get it sort of a little bit back, their humanity and their time, they could talk to a friend, they could knit, they could read a book, they could do writing or something else they're passionate about.

So it would reduce, they're taking that without paying us or paying other folks in.

They're not going to do anything unless we force them to do it.

So please force them to do it and then make transit free for everybody.

I am disabled and it's silly that I still have to pay.

Thank you.

Bye.

All right, so we're going to move to a minute on the clock and ask folks to do their best to stay within that just so we can get to the agenda.

We still have nine more folks signed up to comment.

So Harry, you're first, and then, or you're next, and then Mary Kylie Cranfield, and then Douglas Sexton.

Okay, just talk twice as fast then.

So thank you for your time.

I'm Harry Marr.

I'm a data analyst and live in District 6. And so I ride the 44 bus to work every day and here in support of the proposed legislation for Orca for All.

Because I know that low-wage workers struggle to get around still.

A few years ago, when I was a recent college graduate, Man, I'm in and out.

So I had a couple of jobs, was taking coding classes, and one was at a Fremont sandwich shop.

And we were all pretty broke, recent graduates.

We had this cash tip jar at the end, and we'd divide up tips at the end of every shift.

And it was like, man, we hope we get enough to make bus fare today.

And it was kind of a joke then, but then also kind of wasn't, because then you'd hike across the city if it's a slow day and rainy, which it often was on slow days.

So yeah, now I'm working in tech and got a bus pass with work out of time, and it doesn't make sense.

So I think people who need the passes the most are the least likely to get them.

So please work on.

Thanks.

Thanks, Harry.

Hello, my name is Mary Kelly Cranford, and I live in D6, and I'm a member of the Transit Riders Union, and I'm here to speak in support of Orca for All.

I work in commuter benefits for a large employer downtown, so I get to speak to a lot of employees, and when they realize they get a free Orca pass, their face lights up, realizing the different options they have, and honestly, the stress they don't have to figure out when you move to a new city how to get an Orca card or how to updo all these things.

It eliminates so many barriers, even just perceived barriers, toward taking public transit, which is a lot easier way to get to work.

I take the E-Line every day and consider myself an E-Line evangelist for that commute.

It's an extremely positive impact for anyone who gets a Orca card.

It's something that isn't equitable in our city, and I think we need to push to make that equitable for all that live in Seattle.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Douglas?

Douglas, you're going to be followed by Pacific Northwest Transit Daddy, and then Tiffany McCoy and Carl Nelson.

All right.

I'm Douglas Sexton.

I live in D4.

So I work at a small tech startup.

We only have four employees in Seattle, but we do have transit benefits.

And I have to say that I can personally attest that having transit benefits is huge.

I almost never have to use a car.

It's great.

I use transit more.

But I know my situation isn't the same as everyone else's situation because Just generally across the U.S., wages have been stagnant and with increasing housing prices and increasing college tuitions, it can look like things are stagnant or in decline for people.

And it's really hard to ask for people to pay more in, say, congestion pricing or buying an electric car.

So I think there's difficulties in doing those solutions.

I see public transit not only as a more equitable thing, because there's a lower cost of entry for people, but also the right thing to do for the environment.

Thank you.

Thanks, Douglas.

All right.

Who's the Pacific Northwest Transit Daddy?

How you doing?

So I'm Pacific Northwest Transit Daddy.

I run a blog and an Instagram.

And as a person who has had to make a hard decision between paying for his ORCA Lyft card and actually eating, I kind of have three reasons why we need ORCA for Lyft.

The first reason is that we are standing on indigenous land and the Coast Salish people have been able to roam this land.

for thousands of years without restriction.

Fast forward to 1850 and the signing of the Treaty of Elliott Bay, we have now limited that mobility by our inefficient transit system.

The second reason is efficiency.

We have a bunch of programs designed to help different people in different circumstances get different ORCA cards.

And those different programs get funded differently at different times for different reasons.

It's wildly inefficient.

ORCA for all.

It's pretty simple.

The third reason is I do my blog mostly to try to focus on Washington State's amazing rural transit network.

The rural agencies like Jefferson Transit have oriented themselves to getting people to and from Seattle as efficiently as humanly possible.

These people are coming to Seattle for fun, sure, but they're also coming to work, including one who commutes all the way from Forks to Seattle to work at a bank.

And there's no possible reason why a person should get all the way to our doorstep and have to be turned away simply because they don't have access to transportation.

There's fundamentally no difference between a right that you have that you can't use and a right that you simply don't have.

So consider it, and y'all rock.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Tiffany?

Hi, Tiffany McCoy, Lead Organizer with Real Change, here to show our support for the ORCA for All resolution.

I really wish we were able to get the whole thing passed under you, Councilmember O'Brien, but hopefully the next person is just as awesome, and if not, we'll hold them accountable.

So I'm speaking specifically to like the resolution, base resolution support, but specifically like for our vendors, ORCA Lyft is still cost prohibitive.

That $40, $50, it's still a decision between food, buying papers to then go make money, or whether or not they're able to like go out of town for a weekend if they have some extra cash.

So getting to a zero fare is just what is needed to like not, as others have said, criminalize homelessness and also just to allow like our vendors who are you know, out there doing a job every day, it's not like prohibitive.

Oh, do I get to go to my post today?

Do I have enough for the bus fare?

So $50 or whatever it is, $40 or $50 is still prohibitive.

And then second of all, fare enforcement.

We just need to get rid of fare enforcement.

End of story.

We know that they specifically focus on black and brown bodies.

That just came out in the Seattle Times report.

My time is up.

But we need free transit.

Let's join Kansas City, Missouri.

And like, let's just make this happen.

It's common sense.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tiffany.

Carl Nelson is next.

Carl, you're going to be followed by Sarah Shifley, and then Laureen Frana, and then Matthew Lang.

Hello there.

My name is Carl Nelson.

I'm an 11-year District 4 resident in Seattle, and I've never owned a car, and I've never driven one in Seattle.

Part of the reason that is because we have a robust public transit system.

I'm fortunate, being self-employed, that my employer covers my pass, but that means that coming down to speak today cost me What is it, like five bucks, something like that?

But that's okay.

I can swing it, but a lot of people can't.

I'm here to support ORCA for all because I think it opens up our city to people that really, really need it.

It's fair, it's easy, and I'm sure it probably pays pennies on the dollar in the long run.

So that's all I have to say, and thank you so much for your time.

We'll miss you, Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you, Carl.

Sarah?

Hi.

My name is Sarah Shifley.

I live in South Seattle and I work downtown.

And I take transit every day.

I either take the light rail or the number seven.

And I'm really lucky because I have an ORCA pass from my work that I can use, but a lot of people don't.

And I don't think that the ability to get to and from work should be based on luck.

Orca4All is also something that we need to do to confront our current climate emergency.

The City Council's already supported a Green New Deal and said that they support it and we all know that passenger transit is our largest source of climate emissions.

So Orca4All is a step that we have to take if we're going to stick to the Green New Deal commitment that we've made.

Thank you, Sarah.

Loreen?

Hi, I'm Lorene France, and I also work downtown, and I've always worked for an agency downtown, and I've always had a paid work pass, but the contractors who clean my building and my office do not.

And I know how fragile their lives are because I talk to them all the time.

And ORCA passes are not cheap.

ORCA bus fares are not cheap.

It's very expensive in the city of Seattle.

So it just seems common sense that it's upside down.

Someone like myself who can afford to pay my own transit fares.

gets a subsidy, whereas all of these people who could really virtually change their lives to have free transit are not allowed that.

It's wrong.

And I probably should cede the last 15 seconds to the transit buddy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laureen.

Matthew?

Matthew, you're up.

Didn't even have to break stride.

Yeah, so I've got something from a member of the Transit Riders Union.

My name is Matthew Lang, and I'm the lead organizer of the Transit Riders Union, and this is a statement from our member, John Manella.

Hi, my name is John Manella.

I live right by Fairview and Harrison.

That stretch of Fairview between Denny and Mercer is always a living nightmare.

I watch the traffic delays and breathe in the idling exhaust fumes on a daily basis, and I think that we need to do better now.

Traffic is essentially gridlocked along that stretch and many, many other places in the city for huge parts of the day.

And because of that gridlock, that means we have thousands of cars idling and spewing more and more carbon into the air.

Traffic and carbon pollution are two of the biggest problems our city faces.

This problem affects me urgently, as I live in one of the worst spots for traffic in the area.

And with the additional tech campuses and the Mercer Mega Block Life Science Campus, with 700 additional parking spots, with these projects coming online in the very near future, we can reasonably expect that traffic and air pollution are going to balloon.

That's why we so desperately need ORCA for All, an intelligent, reasonable, equitable plan to address traffic and carbon pollution in Seattle.

This plan would give all Seattle workers access to the same great transit that passes the tech workers, lawyers, and public accountants get.

And because of that clear mandate from voters, we have the all clear to use big business and billionaire owners as sources for funding.

Support ORCA for All.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Yep.

I was going to say that that's the last person signed up.

So if other folks didn't sign up, please just get in the queue.

You'll each have a minute.

Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Aiden.

I live in Wallingford.

And while I absolutely support Orca for All, I'm here to speak about an emergency related to homelessness.

Not the homelessness emergency, but the emergency that is the changes that were just proposed to the regional authority.

I was just talking to my friend Matthew about this.

The scale of the alterations to the governance structure proposed seem like a threat to being able to get evidence-based policy and policy that actually funds and functions in a progressive and equitable way that's not politically motivated by politicians in other areas that, to be honest, voters probably don't sympathize as much with homeless people as they ought to.

This needs to work.

You know how crisis this is.

Let's hold the mayor and the county council accountable if needed to make this functional.

Alice Lockhart, 350 Seattle.

We just came from another meeting, so this is completely improvisational today.

I want to voice our emphatic support for Orca Fall, but also today I'd like to take a moment to welcome Councilmember Peterson and to honor Mike O'Brien, who has been such a champion for fighting climate change and fighting for the best possible city for the people who live here.

I want to say to Mike, you just have our deep thanks and appreciation and we so look forward to finding out what you're going to do next.

Me too.

And to Councilmember Peterson, I want to say welcome and that you could not have a better role model as a predecessor.

You're so lucky.

Thank you.

Thanks, Alice.

Hello.

My name is Jessica Scalzo, and I'm here in high support of ORCA for All, and I second what she said, so yes, thank you, Michael Bryan.

Welcome, Alex Peterson.

And yeah, what people were mentioning earlier about the subsidy for people who, I think the statistic was make, over $100,000 or more, like 85% get subsidized transit, and those who make $50,000 or less, maybe less than 50%, get subsidized transit.

So it seems like we're making the people that make less pay more, which I'm not in favor of.

Yeah, as someone who used to walk and bike everywhere and now I have injuries and so I have to take the bus everywhere, it adds up quickly and having subsidized transit would be very helpful and encourage, I think, lots of people to use it.

So thank you very much.

Thanks, Jessica.

Good to see you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Enrico Doan.

I am with Rooted in Rights as a disability advocate, and I wanted to just share a perspective on transit for the disabled community.

For many of us, transit is our only option.

Many of us are not able to drive.

Sometimes driving is the only accessibility option, but for an overwhelming number of people relying on an increasingly scarce resource like public transit is making lives difficult.

With 976 still being litigated and we're figuring out that mess, council's support for legislation like Orca4All would go a long way.

I think that the disabled community here in Seattle has been for many years not present at the table for a lot of these conversations and so I urge you to consider our presence not just in the city but in the work that you're doing day to day.

So thanks very much.

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

Hello, my name is Teddy.

First, I want to thank the council.

I want to share a personal story about the inequity of who gets an employer-subsidized OrcaCard.

I work for Google, and as a full-time software engineer, I receive a fully subsidized OrcaCard.

This allows me to sell my car and enjoy the independence and cost savings that come with going car-free.

And when you think of, you know, a company like Google or Amazon, this is what you think of.

Wealthy software engineers who probably could drive, but, you know, who wants to give up a free ride to work?

But this isn't true for all Google workers.

A majority of the people who work at Google are temps, vendors, and contractors.

Workers who receive different benefits than full-time employees like myself.

These workers are hired through external companies who have no obligation to provide any transit benefits.

And because they often compete with other contracting companies for Google contracts, are encouraged to keep costs as low as possible.

So I was surprised to hear that my friends and colleagues who work in the same building as me don't get this same blue card of freedom and independence, especially considering they often make half as much as I do, and for whom this would be a life-changing experience.

So I went to some Google leadership and saying, hey, we're supposed to be a leader on sustainability.

Why can't we do this?

And I was essentially ignored in saying this requirement would be too difficult to enforce for all of our contractors.

So I'm here for the people that represent the people in Seattle.

These contracting companies have no interest in Seattle, not its congestion, its pollution, its equity.

And Google made over $140 billion in revenue last year.

This wouldn't even show up as a rounding error on their balance sheets, but would be a huge step for all the workers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Not seeing anyone else coming to the microphones, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

Thank you all so much for being here and for comments and look forward to discussion around Orca for All.

in a few minutes.

Why don't we jump into what's labeled as agenda item number two.

It's our first agenda on the item after we moved it.

And Kelly, do you mind reading that into the record?

Not at all.

Appointment 01528, appointment of Adrian Lopez Romero as a member of the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board for a term to August 31st, 2023. Great.

Invite everyone forward.

Hello.

When we get seated, we can start with a quick round of introductions.

And you can go ahead and pull that mic up to you, and names.

This is Alyssa Patrick, and I'm with the Office of Sustainability and Environment, staffing the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board.

Welcome.

Hi, my name is Adrian Lopez, and I'm the Program Director for the Denise Lui Education Center.

Great.

Welcome.

Do you want to give us a little bit of an overview of what the Community Advisory Board does?

Yeah, I'll just give a little introduction.

So the Sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board was established by the same ordinance that created the beverage tax.

The role of the board is to develop recommendations for the mayor and city council on the programs and services to support with beverage tax revenue that align with the ordinance priorities of food access, child health and development, and education.

According to the ordinance, the board shall consist of 11 members who are residents of the city of Seattle or work within the boundaries of the city of Seattle.

Today, we are here for the confirmation hearing of Adrian Lopez Romero for one of the board positions reserved for an early learning representative.

It's my pleasure to introduce Adrian.

Mr. Lopez-Romero's background in public service, data management, and program development has served Seattle children and families in a number of ways.

He's currently the program director at the Denise Louie Education Center, where he oversees strategic development and daily operations of the home-based and center-based programs.

Prior to this role, Mr. Lopez-Romero worked in several different capacities for the center, from serving as a home visitor himself, to designing coaching models for staff, to improving data collection and tracking systems.

In Chaco, Canty, in his native Venezuela, Mr. Lopez-Romero developed education, outreach, and technology projects to respond to community needs.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics education with emphasis in computer science from Universidad Francisco de Miranda in Coro, Venezuela.

With that, I'll turn it to you.

Thank you.

Adrian, thank you for your work and for your willingness to serve on this committee.

Maybe you can just take a few minutes and expand on what we just heard and tell us a little bit about why you want to do this job and what you're hoping to accomplish.

Yeah, of course.

One of the reasons why I want to do it, so I have been serving this community for the last five years, working in home-based programs and then working also in the center-based programs.

And one of the biggest reasons that I want is, you know, it's a great opportunity to be part of what could shape policies and can also tell you what we could do with the revenues and all the resources that you have in the city.

It's just really to take that opportunity to also advocate for all the programs and agencies that I have been knowing and getting to know for the last five years.

You know, it's not just the families that we serve, it's not just the gap that it's existing in the kids from zero to five years old, but also the workforce that we work with.

There is needs, not only in those families, it also needs on the people that serve those families.

And also there is needs on some gaps that are for some of the kids that, for example, right now King County has a program that is called Bridge for kids that has a disability.

But those kids are more than three years old.

Because they are more than three years old, we can't serve in the home-based program.

But also, we can't have them in a program for the preschool program because they cut off the school year.

So sometimes it could go from one month to eight months to 12 months.

that we can serve them because they can't, they don't qualify for their early intervention agencies, but also they don't qualify to go to school already.

So right now we just serve with Bridge King County, just 50 kids and that's nothing.

And then, you know, advocating, I have been working for different type of agencies with the people that work for these agencies and also with the state, with the city, with King County.

And there are needs, needs on the workforce, there are needs on the family.

It is really important to go and work with them and I will support the part of the transportation for ORCA for all because that's one of the biggest barriers that our families have.

We try to, you know, we serve homeless families, we serve low-income families, but at least we try to give or provide transportation for those homeless families.

But for those families to get to the dentist, to those families to go to the appointment that they have to go, or just to go and engage with us in an activity that is fun for that kid that needs to be ready to go to the school, sometimes they can't.

because it's impossible for them to go out of it.

Sometimes we just think that it's, you know, it's just getting out of your house and that it's a difficult task for them.

So that's part of the reason why I'm here.

I think shaping the policies that you have in the city and serving to the community and serving for what we believe, not my interest, but more about the interest of that community that I work with every day, that's what drives me.

And that's one of the reasons why I want to be here.

Yeah.

That's great.

Thank you, Adrian, for that very thoughtful explanation.

This committee is quite a time commitment, especially I know in the past year there's been a lot of work as it's getting off the ground and we're setting policies.

There's been some back and forth on different interpretation of that.

So, you know, hopefully that work is lined up.

But I imagine in the next, you know, the next iteration or two, there'll probably continue to be work as we continue to work it out.

And at the moment, there's excess revenue coming in.

more than anticipated because the consumption of sugary beverages, sweetened beverages is higher than we'd forecast.

I expect that that'll go the other direction relatively soon because that's what's happened in every other city and then that'll be a different challenge of how to manage that.

But we really appreciate your perspective on there.

Obviously, there's a mix of investments folks are making and balancing those needs between between the youth, the young kids, and the healthy food access, so thank you.

Councilor Peterson, questions?

We're really lucky to have found you.

So, your resume is incredibly impressive.

It's exactly what we need.

Denise Louie is a high-quality operator.

The Magnuson Place, that's actually in District 4, who I represent.

So, we have almost 1,000 low-income residents there now.

And so, I really appreciate your work, your regular work.

So, thank you for stepping up for this.

I also love your background with data.

data management and IT, that's going to be very useful.

And then what you just explained here about you know where the gaps are, so you know how this money can be invested in evidence-based strategies that help kids.

So, thank you.

Great.

Thanks a bunch.

If there's nothing else, I'll go ahead and move appointment 01528. Second.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Great.

So thank you so much for being here today.

At the end of today's agenda, I'll move to suspend the rules so we can send this to the full council next Monday.

You don't need to be here for that, but we will take action to hopefully do that.

So thanks so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Agenda item number three.

Do you want to read that in, Kelly, and invite presenters forward?

Seattle Transportation Benefit District Operations Report.

Welcome, everyone.

Thank you all for being here.

As you get settled, why don't we go ahead and do introductions?

Perfect.

Hi, my name is Rachel Verboort, and I work for Seattle DOT.

Hi, my name is Alex Wakeman-Rouse.

I'm a member of the Transit Advisory Board and our Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee liaison.

Great.

My name is Erin Taig.

I'm the co-chair of the Transit Advisory Board.

Candia Lorenzana Estad.

I'll be the one kicking us off today for this discussion of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

First and foremost, SDOT's mission is to deliver a transportation system that provides safe and affordable access to places and communities.

And in our daily work, we're committed to six values, equity, safety, mobility, sustainability, livability, and excellence.

Today we're here to provide you an overview of the program.

We'll be speaking to our investments in King County Metro service to date and the efforts to increase access to transit for low income populations and youth.

As well as our transit spot improvement program, which includes installing bus lanes, new transit stops to enhance the experience of transit riders.

We also have our transit advisory board members here today to do their report out for the year.

To set the context, the city began investing in King County Metro Service in 2015 after Seattle voters approved a measure to fund service through a 0.1% sales tax and a $60 vehicle license fee.

This measure allows the city to invest in metro service, programs that improve access to transit, and created the Transit Advisory Board.

I'll hand this off to Rachel to provide an overview of the program and outcomes achieved to date.

Thank you.

So, first and foremost, I want to give a quick overview of the program.

So, the Seattle Transportation District, as Candida said, is a voter-approved program, and the bulk of the STPD funds are used to purchase additional trips on King County Metro routes that operate within the City of Seattle.

Today, routes with 65% or more of their stops within the city of Seattle are eligible for funding through the STBD.

STBD also includes several programs that aim to provide high quality and low cost transportation options that allow car ownership to be an option, not a necessity within Seattle.

These efforts include things such as marketing and helping to enroll low-income individuals in ORCA Lift.

It also includes other programs such as the ORCA Opportunity Program.

And this program provides ORCA cards to both students at Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Housing Authority residents.

In 2018, City Council approved a scope change to provide further flexibility in the routes that STBD funds, as well as allow us to expand our funding on ORCA opportunity and transit capital projects.

Today, STBD funds can be used and are used to help fund capital facilities that improve transit speed and reliability and passenger improvements.

We are here today to talk about the year four annual report, and I wanted to first make sure both of you had one.

Would you like one if you don't already have one?

There you go.

So to provide a little bit of context of where we are in the transit sphere, since 2010, the number of commuters traveling downtown in the morning using modes like transit, walking, and biking has grown by nearly 10%.

Specifically, most of this growth has occurred on transit.

As you can see in the diagram above, 48% of folks coming downtown in the morning took transit to get to work in 2017. Seven years prior to that, it was just at 42%.

We've made long strides to increase our transit mode share, and you can see a related drop in the number of people commuting downtown in single occupancy vehicles.

So, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, STPD funds several programs through the combined sales tax and vehicle license fee revenues.

The largest portion goes towards additional service on King County Metro routes.

We show here how much we have spent in 2015 to 2018, or sorry, 2019 and our 2020 proposed budget.

And this graphic summarizes the program in whole.

Shown in blue, you can see that 79% or 79 cents on every dollar goes directly to adding bus trips on routes across the city.

Five cents on every dollar goes towards those transit capital improvements that really help to push our dollars on service further.

Seven percent goes towards kind of our income and access to transit through fare-based programs.

So specifically, ORCA Opportunity and our low-income access to transit fund.

$0.02 on every dollar is for planning analysis, and $0.07 goes to fund reserve funding to ensure that we can make service through the next service change since service isn't added every day of the year.

Next, I'm going to go into a little bit more detail about the specific transit investments we're making.

To get a sense of scale, as of 2019, 8% of King County Metro's network is funded by the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

That's the entire network, not just the Seattle network.

Entire countywide network, correct.

Since STBD began making investments in 2015, we've used our funding to both meet the additional demand for transit in the city, but also to think proactively about how we can help create a network for the future and the additional demand that we're seeing come in.

We follow a few guidelines to help guide where we invest and which routes specifically we invest in.

Some of the key investment goals that we follow are listed above.

First and foremost, we want to build out our frequent transit network.

And this is a network of local, frequent, and very frequent routes, often referred to as kind of routes that come every 10 minutes, every 15, or every 30 minutes.

We want to make sure that we provide additional transit service where there is increased density.

This helps to marry the transportation and land use growth that we see in the city.

And so we want to make sure that we not only accommodate the new residents, but proactively put service on the road so that as people come in, they have an ability to get on the route that they want to take.

We also, using STPD funds, want to improve access for historically disadvantaged populations.

We know that public transit is an important tool for reducing driver loan rates, but it's also critical in providing access for those who rely on transit.

We prioritize those investments that are an outcome of the racial equity analysis that we completed two years ago, and really try to make sure that we provide service in a geographic location where we know people are more likely to take it, but also times of the day.

And so this includes things like our night owl network.

We made sure that we have a network of 24-hour routes to serve riders that need service all times of the day.

And then lastly, we want to improve connections across the city.

And this kind of ties into what I said previously, but a key component we know is that it's difficult to get east-west across the city.

And so we've prioritized investments, specifically frequency investments, on those east-west routes to make sure that people can travel everywhere in the city, not just to and from downtown Seattle.

Next, in year four, and to clarify, year four through the STBD program is pretty much June of 2018 through June of 2019. But during this time period, we've added 95,000 new transit service hours.

And for those of you that don't really think about things in terms of service hours like I do, that's equivalent to about 1,500 new weekly trips across the city.

Specifically, in this time period, we're looking at three service changes.

So September of 2018, March of 2019, and September of 2019. In September of 2018, we added 300 new weekly trips on 15 different routes.

In March of 2019, we added 316 new weekly trips on four routes.

And then most recently, a couple months ago, we added 937 new weekly trips on 23 routes across the city.

Pretty amazing.

Thanks.

So now I'm going to dive a little bit deeper into the performance that we've made in achieving our frequent transit network.

So SDOT's Very Frequent Routes, or 10-minute service, serve those kind of highest density, highest ridership areas of the city.

And they provide connections both north and south, east and west, to serve homes, jobs, and activities across the city.

The levy to move Seattle established a goal to provide 72% of households with a 10-minute walk to 10-minute or better service by the year 2025. When STPD started in 2015, as you can see on this graphic, we were at 25%.

Today, we're at 70% of Seattle households that have access to a 10-minute or better route within a 10-minute walk of their house.

Let's just pause there for a second.

Over the course of four years of investment, previously one in four people actually had that kind of access, and now it's 70% of people in the city.

That's pretty amazing.

We've also, I'll just toot our horn a little bit further, we've completely surpassed our initial levy to move Seattle 2020 goal, which was at 53%.

So we've surpassed our interim goal and have our sights set on that 2025 goal.

Was the increase a function of providing more frequent service to existing lines or was it opening up new lines or a combination?

We only add trips on existing King County Metro routes.

One of the big things that helped expand the network though was the expansion of Link.

So when Link expanded, that covered additional households with access to that 10 minute service.

And so we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit, but we're a couple years away from expanding Link.

A lot of that will be in District 4. Anticipation of what that looks like, I mean those areas I think are fairly well served by transit today, but that will add more and it will probably free up some transit service to go elsewhere too.

Right.

So as typically happens when major infrastructure changes happen, such as link expansion, King County Metro does a service restructure around the area.

And they lead those restructures as the countywide transit agency.

And they make sure that they reorient the bus routes to serve those networks, to make sure that the public can really benefit from that new infrastructure.

And it can provide new connections to new areas or improve travel times where possible.

Great.

Perfect.

Next up, we just previously talked about our 10-minute service.

Now we want to talk a little bit about our 15-minute network.

We, again, want to really hear it through the STPD program.

We want to connect our frequency improvements to where the growth is occurring across the city.

And this graphic shows how we connect our transit investments to our urban villages.

So this graphic shows every urban center, urban village, and manufacturing industrial center in Seattle, along with the number of routes with frequent service, or 15-minute service.

To explain the graphic a little further, the white hashes and the numbers shown in that are the routes that we added just this year.

So most recently this past fall in September, we added trips on routes 1, 11, 14, 124, and 372 to bring them up to frequent service levels.

And using route 372 as an example, it then adds trips to the University District and Lake City in this graphic.

Perfect.

So do you have any questions on the service component?

The one thing I'll just mention for folks to remember is when we talk about a 10-minute network, that means that if you're not checking a schedule or looking at an app and you just walk out there, on average, you're going to wait five minutes for a bus.

And a 15-minute network means, on average, you'll wait 7 and 1⁄2 minutes.

So pretty amazing to think how many places in the city, even if you're not tracking or traffic and stuff, you can just walk out and get that level of service.

Those are pretty short waits, which is pretty cool.

Great.

So next, I want to talk in a little bit more detail about the performance in year four for our transportation equity and access programs.

To improve travel options for students, the city of Seattle launched the ORCA Opportunity Program in 2018. And then in August 2018, we expanded that program to provide free unlimited 12-month cards for high school students at Seattle Public Schools, income-eligible middle school students at Seattle Public Schools, and Seattle Promise Scholars.

Of the 15,000 Seattle Public School high school students, just about 12,000 receive an ORCA card, most of which receive the cards that are funded by the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

Worth noting, we work very closely with the Seattle Public Schools because they also provide some of the ORCA cards to students.

But in total, through the Seattle Public Schools and STBD, we are providing access to all high school students at Seattle Public Schools.

Pretty awesome.

Next, I want to give some quick updates on other transportation equity related initiatives.

This past June, we launched the 12-month pilot for ORCA Opportunity to provide 1,500 unlimited ORCA cards to income eligible Seattle Housing Authority residents.

And kind of a quick outcome to date, about 16, we've actually distributed over 1,600, and 77% of those residents with their cards use those cards in the month of October.

For the transportation equity work group, that is a work group that meets for one year in which the SDOT staff engage with our transportation community and community-based organizations in facilitated conversations and activities.

And the main outcome we're trying to do is build a relationship with those individuals, but they will help us provide a set of community-guided recommendations to be considered when SDOT develops the transportation equity agenda.

Next, we have the Youth Transportation Ambassadors Program.

This effort engages with youth-based community organizations to have discussions about accessible and affordable transportation options.

We really want to focus on culturally relevant and language-appropriate programming.

So not only does it build capacity within the organizations, and these organizations are youth-based, but it also helps them educate and inform their community on available transit options.

This year, we worked with WEAP and Red Eagle Soaring.

Both are creating short films on the impact of public transit among their community.

And then lastly, as a quick update, we launched a senior regional reduced fare permit pilot this year.

And it aims to enroll and educate Seattle seniors on the regional reduced fare permit card.

To date, we have enrolled 117 seniors in this program and provided them a voucher for transit use.

And we also educate them on how to use transit.

And some of the anecdotes we've received are seniors that have never taken the bus or never taken streetcar, and they're very excited to understand how the system works and how they can use it for their daily life.

It's got to be pretty powerful work unleashing, unlocking that potential for people.

Thank you.

Next, we want to talk quickly about our transit spot improvements.

So SDOT works very closely with King County Metro, Sound Transit, and the other transit providers to enhance transit operations throughout the city.

These improvements can be speed and reliability focused, help the operational environment, or the passenger experience.

Some of these projects that I'll discuss are jointly funded through the Seattle Transportation Benefit District or the levy to move Seattle.

Can I bring up one issue?

Have you heard of the buses on Brooklyn situation where Brooklyn Avenue is going to be built too narrow to accommodate buses?

And Sound Transit really wants to stay on their schedule, so they're worried that if there's any changes, we try to widen it to accommodate buses, it'll screw up Sound Transit's schedule.

I don't know, you're talking about the coordination.

I don't know if that's something that's on the agenda to talk with SDOT about, or excuse me, to talk with Sound Transit about, to assure them that SDOT's able to get things done on Brooklyn.

That's not something that's really covered in the scope of our transit spot improvement program, but something we would entertain a conversation with Sound Transit on to understand that issue further.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect.

So we think about spot improvements in kind of six different areas.

They include improving safety, dedicating right-of-way, and this typically involves transit lanes.

So an example of a spot improvement that occurred was the new 5th 6th transit pathway just outside City Hall here.

We also use spot improvements to upgrade bus stops and provide new rider amenities.

We will change traffic signals and examples of that include cue jumps or additional turn pockets and turn signals to make sure that buses have smoother operations and reliable travel times.

Here are three examples of recent spot improvements that we completed over the last year.

First on the left, you see the Olive Way bus lane.

This was a existing peak only bus lane that expanded to a full time all day one.

And we really assessed what were the passenger volumes relative to vehicle volumes and saw the need to expand the time and extent of this bus lane to make sure that transit could continue to operate.

We installed a new stop at Blanchard and Sixth.

This is part of our kind of continued effort to help provide stops where we see new ridership demand developing.

And then Third Avenue, just this past fall, we expanded the times.

Now it is 6 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

every day of the week.

And what we've seen in this is we've been able to maintain travel times and travel speeds for buses, and in some times of the day, actually improve the speed so that it's a more reliable and faster trip for our riders.

That's great, and that's in light of the other changes in the Seattle Squeeze, tolling, and other things going on.

That's still been maintained.

That's pretty great.

And then next, I want to turn it over to Aaron and Alex to report out from the Transit Advisory Board.

Great.

Great.

And I'll just share a little bit about our board.

So among other things, we were set up through the STBD to function as a public oversight committee of revenues collected under STBD, the proposition, and we're required to make an annual report.

We're very pleased with the progress that SDOT has taken in this last year in reaching the goals that were approved last year.

under STBD Proposition 1. We believe that STBD has provided critical transit opportunities, as Rachel discussed, and we think they've been used to improve transit speed and reliability and really expanding access to transit, which is extremely important in our city.

We also last year communicated enthusiasm for the material scope change, and we are pleased with the scope changes so that the funds can be used for metro routes that have 65% of stops in the city compared to just 80. We've seen that SDOT's increased their transit service hours in the northern and southern edges, and these areas have higher proportions of historically marginalized folks.

And they were areas in which SDOT was, it was harder for SDOT to reach prior to the material scope change.

So we're excited that these residents will better see the benefits of STBD.

For example, my neighborhood of Rainier Beach, the 106, which serve folks in Rainier Beach, but also up in Skyway.

We also were pleased that the material scope changed that the city's begun with capital improvements or the transit spot improvement program.

We believe this program, it appears to be difficult to set up.

There's been a tight deadline for construction and a dearth of shovel ready projects and available construction resources.

There's a lot going on in the city.

We also noticed that most of the improvements have been focused on downtown related to the Seattle squeeze.

So we encourage this program to move its focus to outlying neighborhoods, such as along the Route 7 in Southeast Seattle, though we know the current uncertain funding situation may put plans on hold.

We're also pleased that STVD has taken steps to reach out to disadvantaged populations through ORCA Opportunity.

As Rachel discussed, ORCA cards for Seattle Public High School students and income eligible middle school students.

We're particularly pleased with the Seattle Housing Authority Partner Pilot Program.

So we hope that all of these programs can continue.

We believe these investments foster growth and independence for participants and encourage transit use across the city.

And I'll pass it along to Erin now.

Okay.

I'm here to discuss sort of next steps.

Every year we come and give this presentation and every year we're not quite satisfied with where we could be.

This is a particularly momentous year though for a couple of reasons.

One, obviously we're all aware of the current 9-7-6 fight that's happening in the courts and I'm sort of here to be the doom and gloom advocate.

I would say that In, I'm hopeful that we will prevail, but in the event of a situation where we do need to make cuts to the program, we're here to encourage you to continue to use the same race and social justice initiative approach that we used to add service and capital in order to reduce service and capital to try to minimize any impacts to historically disadvantaged populations.

It also, the second big topic here is that the program is almost at its sunset.

It needs to be renewed next year or the 8% of metro service that we are currently funding goes away or someone else has to pay for it.

And obviously that is something that residents of the city have gotten used to and it's something that residents of the city have built their lives around.

It's how they've chosen where to live.

It's how they've chosen what jobs they can have.

And it would be incredibly impactful and incredibly terrible if that service were to disappear.

So we encourage you to take a race and social justice initiative approach also as we look to a future program and how that program is funded to continue to use those resources.

progressive funding strategies that are available and to continue to pursue other options to ensure that the program is funded progressively and is helping rather than charging those historically disadvantaged populations.

Thank you, Erin and Alex.

Really appreciate your ongoing work and your entire board's work and oversight of this.

It's an amazing set of investments, amazing resource that the people of Seattle have supported in the past, and really challenging with 976. People in Seattle, from that vote, clearly still support investments in transit and our transportation infrastructure.

elsewhere in the state that's a problem.

You mentioned the legal challenges that those are gonna continue to play out.

My understanding is that there's currently an injunction in place preventing that law from taking effect, so we're continuing to collect revenue.

The next service change round is in March of next year, and my understanding is the decision about what to invest or not invest had to happen sometime this week.

Where is the city and the county for what's going to play out next spring.

Are you asking specifically about this March or next March?

I'm asking about March 2020, so four months from now.

The service is going to move forward as is currently invested for March of 2020, so there will be no reductions made.

The city and the county are actively working together to discuss options for evaluating for a transit measure in 2020, recognizing that we're coming into the sunset of STVD.

But it's going to be a lot about working together next year to navigate all the different pieces of this.

Yeah.

Well, it's obviously complicated with the 976 and the legal challenge around that because that's a short timeframe to plan in a perfect world and the uncertainty that that provides.

It's great to hear.

that the city is going to continue to make the investment.

So that means that we'll have the same level of service we're seeing today through September of next year.

Obviously, if there was a bad outcome in the legal case, we'll have to figure out what to do.

But it would be devastating to lose this service, and we're going to have to figure out what kind of closing that gap looks like and how we fund it, if that's the case.

But hopefully we prevail, and we can move on to looking at new ways to expand the service even further.

So I was really happy to support the Transportation Benefit District in 2014. And since I'll be sticking around here, I will fight to renew it.

And I'm glad to know we're keeping the funding steady over the next several months.

I'm hopeful we will prevail against I-976.

I had a question about the, in terms of renewal, the revenue sources, when you were talking about the progressive revenue, would you still support having it renewed with the sales tax in the part of the sources of funds for the renewal or?

I didn't.

I mean, this is, yeah, exactly.

I think that it is the most important thing is that it be renewed.

Okay.

Absolutely, 100%.

Thanks for clarifying.

Okay, great.

Yeah, it'd be great if the state legislature next year gave us some more flexibility to have some other sources that maybe were more progressive than some of the options there.

And if they don't take that action, Personally, I won't be here to be, I'll be a voter out there still, but I won't be here making the action.

But my hope is that we find a way to, it would be really regressive to lose the service.

And I think that it's critical to figure out how to do that, so.

I appreciate it.

I agree.

I look forward to emailing you and calling you.

I hope you'd be like Obi-Wan Kenobi sort of appearing on my shoulder, telling me what to do.

Yes, you'd be great.

All right.

Great.

Anything else you all want to add?

I just want to take a moment and thank you and this committee for your leadership and support on the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

I think it's really, it's been really great to have your help in supporting our partnership with King County Metro and ORC Opportunity and really appreciate all you've done to help make this successful.

So thank you.

Thanks so much.

That means a lot to me.

I feel lucky to have had the chance to work with you all and lucky that the voters of Seattle made this huge investment that happened to be while I was serving.

And it's a story that often gets told in different ways, but the city's work with the county, oftentimes people are critical of too many governments and they don't get along well.

And from what I've seen, it's really an amazing partnership.

I mean, Kennedy, you've worked at both places, so you've seen both sides.

But I mean, that's kind of symbolic of the partnership is we have, and we have people in the city formerly the city, that are working at the county and understand both agencies really well.

And it's allowed us to do some amazing partnerships.

I know that other jurisdictions outside of Seattle are sometimes envious of the level of service we're able to fund.

And I'm hopeful that maybe there's an opportunity in the renewal of the Transportation Benefit District for other jurisdictions of the county to join in and see this 10-minute and 15-minute network beyond just the city of Seattle, which is pretty cool service.

So thanks for all your work.

Thank you.

All right.

Agenda item number, where are we?

Three, four.

Three or four.

Oh, yeah, right.

Stated four, actual three.

We read vision zero into the record.

Vision zero and pedestrian master plan update.

And I'll invite presenters forward.

Welcome, everyone.

Once you're settled, why don't we go ahead and start with introductions?

I'm David Bergesser with Estat's Project Development.

Hi, I'm Bradley Topol.

I manage the Vision Zero program.

Good afternoon.

Jim Curtin with Project Development, Estat.

Sam Zimbabwe, Director at Estat.

Welcome, everyone.

Go ahead.

I can jump in.

Jump in, Sam.

Sorry, I'm jumping right in.

I'm just kicking it off and letting these gentlemen run through the presentation.

I wanted to start by thanking both of you for being at the announcements that we made earlier this week on some initial actions that we're taking in response to Vision Zero, which we're going to talk through a little bit more here and then talk about.

some of the infrastructure investments through the pedestrian master plan.

I think the most critical thing is that we are not, the trends this year have been very troubling, they're unacceptable to us, and we're taking swift action to address them.

The things that we'll talk through, some of these are long-term investments, some of these are short-term, very rapid changes that we'll be making, and I want to thank again both of you for being with us on Tuesday when we announced those.

more to come on that, and Jim, Brad, and David are going to walk through the presentation.

Great.

Thank you, Sam, and thanks again for coming to the event on Tuesday at the Southeast Senior Center, where we talked a little bit about what we've seen on our streets this year in 2019. After a relatively good year in 2018, we had serious crashes sharply increase in 2019. In fact, we're on pace to have the worst year in more than a decade as far as the number of fatal crashes are concerned.

We, as Sam mentioned, have been, quite frankly, devastated at times over some of the crashes that have occurred on our streets.

And we have been working since we noticed this trend in, I want to say, about June or July.

So we're going to focus on some of these items to stem the tide and mitigate some of these bad crashes out here.

The big factor and the thing that we're seeing most often is that fatal collisions are disproportionately affecting pedestrians on our street.

And in fact, fatal pedestrian collisions have tripled over last year.

And it has been a consistent trend over the last eight years.

Pedestrians have been well overrepresented in our data.

Pedestrian collisions make up about 4% of our total crashes, just 4%, but well over 50% of our fatalities.

So Vision Zero being a data-driven program, we have our priorities pretty well set for the foreseeable future here.

And the one, I think, Item that I'd like to highlight here is that older pedestrians are more often victims in these crashes You know, it's not necessarily that older people are hit in crashes more often they're less able to bounce back in these collisions and as Our society ages.

This is something that we really need to be thinking about as we move forward and redesign our streets deploy new and innovative enforcement strategies and bring educational information to our residents and visitors here in Seattle.

And then finally, as I know was mentioned earlier during public comment, Aurora is of particular concern for us and has been for quite some time.

But this year, we have had five pedestrian fatalities out there and a number of others.

This is unacceptable.

And Brad's going to run through some of the steps that we're taking to make a difference.

Yeah, so as Sam said, we're taking swift action on a variety of different issues, focusing on our engineering, education, and enforcement ways of mitigating some of these crashes and preventing them in the future.

So in order to take action, we're going to be looking to lower speed limits citywide on almost every single street.

We're going to expedite our deployment of our leading pedestrian intervals, our signal treatments that are also called LPIs.

We're going to create a major crash review task force that will involve many different entities between various agencies to look at serious and fatal crashes.

We'll look from our communications perspective to start Vision Zero street teams to have people out on the street talking with the public about some of our safety programs and traveling safely throughout the city.

And then from our enforcement perspective, We're looking at using SPD for some of our pedestrian safety emphasis patrols, and looking to increase some of our automated enforcement programs.

So getting into some of those specific types of treatments.

So lowering speed limits citywide.

What's really important with lowering speeds is you get that decrease in severity, or you get that decrease in the number of our fatalities, or just the number of collisions, period, across the city.

Looking at our LPIs or leading pedestrian intervals, those have shown to strongly reduce turning crashes at signalized intersections.

Our major crash review task force is looking to utilize all those other different agencies and every person's and each agency's expertise in crash review and what leads to some of our better solutions.

We'll be using all those different entities to help us develop further recommendations on how to make our streets safer across the city.

Our street teams we want to use to reach out to a variety of different communities, but specifically underrepresented communities throughout Seattle in order to continue to spread our safety messaging.

And then our pedestrian safety emphasis patrols, the purpose of those are to improve awareness and increase compliance, again, kind of related to our vehicles stopping and yielding to pedestrians.

And by increasing our red light cameras and our safety school zone speed cameras, again we also want to reduce the frequency and severity of our collisions on Seattle streets.

Diving into some of the specific actions we're taking, one of our initiatives that is coming out recently is called our Bike and Pedestrian Safety Analysis.

This is our second phase.

This is kind of a large scale, very heavy data driven process where we look at crashes throughout the city for bicycles and pedestrians of all severity levels.

over a large time span, about seven years, and we look to identify what are those generic risk factors around the city that may contribute to those types of crashes, pedestrian and bicycle crashes.

And then once we've done that, it zooms out and it kind of looks for other hotspots in the city where maybe we're not seeing the same severity or the same frequency of crashes, but we're seeing these very similar risk patterns emerge.

So we use our bicycle and pedestrian safety analysis to kind of guide us to be more proactive with our solutions versus just being solely reactive when a crash occurs.

We're expecting that to come out shortly over the next few weeks or in January.

How is phase two different than phase one?

Phase one was about three years ago.

It was 2016. And so that was the first time we had ever done that.

Seattle is one of the only cities in the country that takes this very heavy data analysis but proactive approach to reducing collisions around the city.

Phase two was a deeper dive.

It was meant to kind of, one, provide some calibration to be like, what we're seeing in the crashes since phase one.

Is our equations right?

Are our algorithms correct?

Is this playing out well?

So it helped further calibrate our system for locating those risk factors and which ones actually contribute and what are the hotspots.

And additionally, took a deeper dive into some of our protected bike lane and bike-specific crashes on our comfortable bicycle network across the city.

I just remain very impressed with this body of work.

You know, Seattle is actually one of the safest cities in the country and in the world.

And it's, as you all have mentioned, unacceptably high rates of injury and fatalities going on in our city still.

And that leaves with this real challenge of When we're already one of the best, and it's still unacceptably bad, we don't, we can't just look to other cities to copy them.

They're looking to us.

And also, you know, there are, well, it's too many.

There's still relatively few.

And so if it's simply, you know, trying to predict where that's going to happen, you know, we're stuck in, it's easy to get stuck and say, well, I saw something bad happen at this intersection, so now we'll go fix it.

And so this body of work to really try to use the data to model and predict what's happening, as some of your other colleagues have described to me, these moments when they look at the data and they look at the map and they'll go out to a spot.

where the data has predicted something and they describe like, oh, within minutes, we start seeing these interactions that are very dangerous already happening.

It's like, wow.

It's great that folks aren't sitting there going, well, there's not much else we can do instead of innovating and creating these new models.

And then it's great to see that you're iterating on that and trying to figure out how that happens going forward.

So I'm impressed.

It's great to know that this next iteration is coming.

I'm glad that the mayor, I'm going to turn it over to the mayor to announce this week some immediate actions and this body of work also will play out and hopefully that will result in reversing the trend swiftly what we're seeing.

Sorry to interrupt.

Thank you.

Moving on, as the mayor released this week and spoke about on Tuesday, we're taking strong action to reduce speed limits citywide.

updating and our policy on how and where we do speed limit reductions, but our target is to reduce speed limits on most city streets to 25 miles an hour.

Again, we know that reducing speed limits, even with just signage, reduces the frequency and severity of crashes on our streets.

We're also going to be working hand-in-hand with WSDOT on some of their state routes, specifically Aurora and Lake City Way, where we continue to see high frequencies and severities of crashes.

And like I just mentioned, we've seen crash reductions of up to 20 to 40% for all collisions on streets where we've previously lowered speed limits to 25 miles an hour.

So this is great that we already have some data from our earlier steps.

And that's, you know, 20 to 40% reduction is something to be pretty excited about.

I look at the grid of or the network of green streets on here, and I imagine that's a lot of speed limit signs.

There's probably not a way to just push a button back in the home office and flip that number to 25. What's the timing on that, and do we have the crews to do it and all that stuff?

Yeah, we've worked with our crews.

We work with our internal design staff and our engineers at SDOT to kind of evaluate all of our resources and what we have available to us.

We truly believe that we can change all of the speed limit signs across the city on the roads that are currently above 25 within the next 12 to 18 months.

We've estimated it to be about 2,500 signs.

And we are continuing to utilize additional and throw as many staff members as we can at this effort, especially over the next few coming months to kind of get this program jump-started really quickly and hopefully start implementing early 2020.

I look forward to seeing Sam out there with a tool belt on and a wrench up on a stepladder changing that sign.

I will say it's both changing out signs, it's also increasing the frequency of speed signs.

That's one thing as we've done this on a corridor by corridor basis, we've increased the frequency of signs from being about one every mile to one every quarter to half a mile.

So it's both changing out signs but also installing new ones and that will help hopefully, I think what has led to some of the crash reduction is also reminding people more consistently about what the safe speed actually is.

That's really exciting for a lot of people.

I know when I was campaigning and knocking on people's doors, they were really focused on the signage.

That was really important to them.

They wanted to see more frequency of the signs.

There were some signs that, you know, they knew it said 30 miles an hour, but it was supposed to be 25. And they're really excited that the signs are coming.

So thank you.

So looking at kind of our intersection treatments and tools and kind of our signal safety toolbox, we're looking to kind of vastly continue our pace for leading pedestrian intervals.

A leading pedestrian interval is a treatment where you give pedestrians a head start at a crosswalk before you give vehicles the green light to turn.

Typically it's three to seven seconds of walk time prior to vehicles getting the green light.

This allows pedestrians to get out there and be visible, lets them establish themselves in the right-of-way, and has been shown both in our local data and on a national scale to reduce pedestrian turning collisions by up to about 60%.

We started doing these at a much higher frequency kind of starting in 2018 and continuing it through 2019. We have 125 to date.

We're basically looking to double that number in 2020, which would cover 25% of the city.

Is that something that ultimately you would do everywhere or are there certain conditions where it makes sense and other conditions where it doesn't make sense?

We are generally looking to evaluate almost every signal in the city to do this treatment.

There are some situations where it may not make sense.

Certain intersections where there's already a lot of left and right turn arrows where pedestrian phases may already be completely isolated from turning traffic.

We wouldn't do it there.

Other locations where we already have all-way walks.

Pedestrians again are already isolated from turning conflicts but for the most part we're looking to do them as many places as we can and and does the Generally the existing infrastructure at intersection support it or does this require?

signal upgrades or new

electronics or computers it varies any of our newer signals It's really just staff reprogramming the signal sometimes in the field even sometimes with our Some of our signals have communication directly into s dot and they can just do it all at their workstation other older signals we do have to upgrade some of the electronics and some of the the boxes that hold the kind of brains of the signals and those take a little more capital and a little more time because we have to send crews out there to replace those so it varies throughout the city, but We're we're adding LP eyes at both locations or adding funding to upgrade signals as well as trying to take advantage of the locations that we can do quickly with That are cheaper to do at the same time Also kind of bouncing into other types of signal treatments, we're looking to kind of increase our enforcement for red light cameras.

We've seen in the past that they reduce a lot of our angle collision or T-bone.

We're looking to double the number of red light cameras across the city at high priority intersections.

Currently we have about 30, so we look to expand to about 60 red light cameras.

In addition, we're looking to install five more school zone speed cameras in school zones across the city.

And so we're continuing to work with SPD to kind of work on two different types of our emphasis patrols.

One is specifically pedestrian focused.

We have our plainclothes police officers that will be going out there and conducting Walking across the street and vehicles that fail to comply or stop or yield will be flagged down by an officer further down the block Hopefully to have a friendly interaction and I'll be provided with a warning In order to kind of talk more about safety in the city and why it's important to yield to pedestrians In addition, on our high collision corridor network, so all our major arterials that have a higher density of collisions as opposed to others, we'll be looking to target specific behaviors that we know are some of our largest contributing factors to collisions and fatalities across the city, such as impairment, distractions, speeding, and failure to stop for pedestrians.

And to be clear the pedestrian safety implicit roles is is focused on pedestrian safety Not on the pedestrians themselves.

Yes Yes, we're trying to Exactly exactly.

We're trying to reduce Driver behavior that puts pedestrians at risk because we know that pedestrians account for again this year it's over 50% of our fatalities across the city and we know that they're the most vulnerable population and

And that'll be particularly at uncontrolled crossings where pedestrians have the right of way.

Whether the crosswalk is marked or not, pedestrians have the right.

So there's no education of pedestrians that's needed.

It's really making sure that pedestrians are safe crossing the street at those locations.

Moving on, our major crash review task force.

We'll be using, like I said, many other agencies.

We'll be coordinating with WSDOT, Cook County Public Health.

We'll be working with...

King County?

Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry.

I'm from Chicago, yeah, sorry, previously.

Many other agencies, including University of Washington, as well as our advisory board representatives and SPD to really use all of their different expertise to kind of dial in and really do a deep dive into specific fatalities, specific serious injuries across the city to really see if we can continue to provide more recommendations for how to guide our funds.

Are there other ways to change our ordinances?

What are the best strategies for that we have been working on.

And we are continuing to prevent these crashes as they happen.

Some of the specific streets that we have been working on are continuing to work on some of our state routes.

Specifically aurora where we have seen again some of our most highest number of additional curb ramps and intersection improvements specifically at 23rd, red bus lane markings, and re-striped all of the existing crosswalks and lane lines.

Moving forward in the near term, we're looking to invest $2 million through to look at additional crossing improvements, potential maybe adding in signals or making pedestrian crossing safer.

We're doing that analysis right now to try to figure out what's the best use of those resources and where are the best places to target them.

And then in the long term, we're developing a long term planning study to look at Aurora Avenue as a whole and kind of come at it from this holistic approach and kind of like what is the ultimate future vision of a safe Aurora Avenue.

This will be looking at, you know, land use and channelization changes and kind of like what is our best options out there.

This will be major capital improvements, so it's going to be part of our long term.

But we're looking at things we've done today, things we're doing tomorrow, and things we'll continue to do on in the future.

And will that planning work be done in conjunction with WSDOT or is that an SDOT?

Yes.

So everything will have to work directly with WSDOT on that.

But we've already been working with them on the existing safety improvements we did this year, and we'll just kind of continue to maintain that partnership into the future.

And it sounds like from conversations I've had over the past couple weeks that that relationship is really improving to be a really robust one.

And hopefully, you know, it's tragic of the collision that happened just a few weeks ago.

But, you know, if something good comes out of that is even deeper coordination with the agencies that allows us to make even better improvements, that would be at least one upside there.

So that's, I hope that plays out.

I'll just note that in public comment we heard You probably heard, too, you know, gratitude for that planning study.

I think that's going to be a really great opportunity to take a comprehensive look at that.

I also appreciate that there's a couple million in capital.

Someone in public comment mentioned that, you know, 2 million doesn't go very far, especially in that corridor, the crossing at 92nd.

That's a great improvement, but that would eat up most of this.

And so, Council Member Peters and I share different sides of Highway 99 in our districts.

And so figuring out, you know, as you do that planning study, where we'll find some investment dollars to make that happen will be something we'll want to keep looking at too.

Also looking at other washed out routes, Lake City Way, specifically we're investing eight and a half million dollars in capital investments over the next two years to improve pedestrian access, increase the number of sidewalks, and continue to add more signals and safe crossings for pedestrians along Lake City Way.

So with that, hand it back over to Jim.

Yeah, and in addition, you know, one of the key components of Vision Zero being a kind of multi-pronged, multifaceted approach is making sure that people are aware.

of what's happening on our streets and our goal to make our streets even safer than they are today.

And one thing that staff learned over the years is that in cities that have a more robust education program, they have better recognition of the Vision Zero goal.

So for example, New York City did a survey and they found that 80% of the population of New York City was aware of Vision Zero and what they were trying to do there.

We did a customer service survey here, and we found that only 30% of Seattleites are aware of what Vision Zero is.

So we want to do a lot more in-person outreach to talk to folks about our goal to improve safety for everyone on our streets.

And we want to reach out to the folks who are impacted most often.

So that's definitely older adults, as we talked about earlier.

But also, you know, historically underrepresented communities.

And, you know, I think there's especially some good opportunities with folks who are new to the United States.

I think we can, you know, reach out to those folks who might not speak English and talk to them about how our transportation system works.

and do it in a friendly way.

And really, I think that'll have really significant impacts on those major streets that are most crash prone in the city of Seattle, like Rainier Avenue South, like Aurora Avenue North.

and others.

So obviously with the squeeze, we had really great communications and we're learning from that and we'll be launching these street teams next year, like I said, to get out and talk to folks.

We've dabbled in the in-person outreach over the years, but this will be a major new push to reach these individuals.

And then a thank you to the mayor and the city council for the addition of nearly $20 million in new funding for Vision Zero projects.

These new funds will go to new safety corridor projects where we, again, take on our most crash-prone streets and rethink the street designs so that we can achieve lower speeds and reduce the crash patterns that we're seeing out there.

We have a number of pedestrian crossing improvement projects that will be moving forward in the center city in particular, where we have the most conflicts between all the different modes.

The Neighborhood Greenway Program, which prioritizes streets for people walking and biking, will get a boost from this, as well as the Bicycle Master Plan, which got a significant infusion of more than $10 million.

So thank you for that.

We know that street design is the most effective way to reduce collisions, and this is going to go a long way to addressing our problem spots in Seattle.

Great.

So in addition to the citywide safety measures we've been implementing, we just completed the annual update of our five-year pedestrian master plan implementation plan.

So this document essentially spells out our near-term actions for how we're going to implement pedestrian improvements, including sidewalks, walkways, crossing improvements.

And it defines our near-term prioritization strategy, so how we prioritize projects across the city, our progress report, so how we've been doing over the past a few years in our project list.

So our five-year updated project list contains 121 sidewalk blocks that's broken up into both traditional sidewalks and cost-effective walkways, which I'll get into in a minute, and 164 crossings that we'll evaluate or upgrade.

So we start out with a large list of crossings and intersections that we know are high priorities and then look at where crossings make the most sense and would be most effective to upgrade for pedestrian crossings.

And we've come far this year.

In 2019, we're on track to construct between 50 and 56 blocks of new sidewalks by the end of the year, improve 16 pedestrian crossings, and construct 29 to 32 safe routes to school improvements, so improving walking routes to public schools.

And these projects are prioritized based on a process that's spelled out through the pedestrian master plan process.

So we look at, we have a priority investment network for pedestrian projects that looks at improving access to transit and schools as kind of our top priority destinations.

And then on top of that, we add scorings for safety factors, health and equity.

whether projects are within or adjacent to an urban village, and age-friendly factors as well that looks at the percentage of older adults that live in areas near our projects and frequent destinations that older adults are accessing.

So our delivery strategy for along-the-roadway improvements includes both traditional sidewalks and cost-effective walkways.

And cost-effective walkways are essentially ways that allow us to stretch our budget further and deliver dedicated pedestrian spaces on more streets more quickly.

And these have taken a number of forms, whether it's at-grade asphalt walkways, delineated pedestrian spaces.

These improvements have allowed us to deliver new walkways for about half the cost of what a traditional curb and gutter sidewalk would cost.

In our work plan, it accounts for about 50% traditional walkways and about Sorry, 57% traditional walkways and about 43% cost effective.

So this is a really important part of our implementation strategy.

Another big part of our strategy is just continuing the programmatic and policy initiatives to improve pedestrian safety and access across the city.

So we've partnered really closely with the Vision Zero program.

And I've been working on policy changes for signals, new crosswalks, leading pedestrian intervals, as well as partnering on the safety and education campaigns and reducing speed limits across the city.

So this graph here just kind of shows the breakdown of traditional and cost-effective walkways and where we're poised to meet our levy deliverable target of delivering 250 blocks of sidewalks throughout the nine-year levy.

I'm curious, looking out a few years there, 22, 23, 24, it's quite variable.

I'm curious what's happening in 22 versus 23. I get the funding maybe a piece of it, but it fluctuates quite a bit.

Yeah, so it essentially follows the program's budget, and a lot of that budget's front-loaded, so as that kind of tapers off towards the end of the levy, and then we have a little bit of an influx in 2024 to deliver some final projects that are posed for future years.

Great.

Great, so we'll open it up to questions.

Excellent, yeah.

Councilman Peterson, do you have any questions for this austere group?

No we learned a lot at the mayor's press conference as well.

So thank you for being here today as well.

This is a really you know it's been a rough year right.

And it's kind of got fingers crossed that we can get through the end of the year without another.

major collision that causes serious injury or death.

Obviously, the calendar doesn't, I mean, lives don't reset on the first of the year, so this is an ongoing effort, but it'll be nice to get this aspect of this year behind us and hopefully have a much better, much safer 2020. It's particularly hard because I know that there's a team of folks that have been continuously working on this.

And despite that, we had a spike this year that's really hard to get our head around.

I am really grateful of the mayor's kind of renewed energy around this and that.

It gives me some hope that, like I said earlier, I think we're doing a lot of the right things, but hopefully that energy and focus and some more additional resources that came from this budget will help us really turn the corner and just bend that curve down.

I appreciate you continually highlighting the challenges.

specifically for pedestrian users and how they are the most vulnerable and within the pedestrian population that are the most vulnerable users, often older users, how we need to focus on that if we want to deliver safety.

And so that's something I'm grateful you're doing that and I'm really sorry to everyone in our city for what's happened this year and I imagine it's heartbreaking for a lot of the folks that work on this because it's not for lack of trying and yet we obviously need to do better work too.

Any other comments, you all?

Well, I think one thing that I'd like to say really quickly is that a lot of the speed limit work that we're doing, and we announced just on Tuesday, was the direct result of the work that we did with, partnered with you and others on in 2016 when we amended the way that the Seattle Municipal Code to allow us a 25 mile per hour default.

So thank you.

Great.

I just want to make a comment.

This is, I think, the last time we'll have a crew of SDOT folks here.

Sam, you and I have had a chance to work together for just under a year, and I'm really grateful that you were recruited here to Seattle, and it's been a pleasure working with you.

I think your vision, your set of values around transportation, not just about the technical aspects, but around how how equity impacts on transportation.

And I think your style and approach are both just great.

And I'm really grateful that the city has you and your leadership means a lot.

I really appreciate all of you.

Jim, you are like just someone who stands out for me.

And I, there's a lot of amazing.

He was pretty tall.

That is true.

There's some amazing folks at SDOT, and I've been really blessed in the 10 years I've been here, the four years that I've been chairing this committee, to get a chance to meet some of those individuals.

And there's more than I can name here.

But just, I think about, I mentioned this elsewhere, that we've heard some amazing civil servants on the national spotlight in the last few years, last few weeks, in some of the congressional testimony of people that I frankly have taken for granted, that these people exist in national government and do an amazing work.

Unfortunately, at the moment, they're being highlighted because of some bad things that are happening at the federal government.

But I think that we have similarly amazing people that are within departments of the city, and I've had the pleasure of working with a lot of them across the city.

SDOT has some outstanding people.

Some people tend to track you down.

Give you a lot of feedback on Twitter, and I'm sure that's always fun and interesting to hear.

But I just think there's, I can't imagine a better department with more people there.

And Jim, you really do are one of the people that personifies a caring for our system, very open approach to listening to people.

and just showing up time and time again to continually learn and how we can do a better job.

And so it's a great city and you're a piece of MegaMet.

So thanks, Jim, for all your work.

I really, really, really appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

And it has been just under a year since we first met.

I've had a great year here.

I'm sorry that I'm not going to get to work with you longer.

If you'll give me one minute of committee time, we also have something for you.

It's the last proviso we'll submit to you.

Can I open it now?

Sweet.

This is a Delridge map I'm peeling off here.

Delridge map, it is not D5.

But, you know, it's a tradition for council members to get a street sign when they depart the council.

We didn't quite feel like that was appropriate in this case.

It's very well wrapped.

Suspense.

The second wrapping.

We felt this was a little bit more appropriate.

Our transportation engineers are the most creative folks in the world, but this is clever, and this will stick with me for the rest of my life.

Thank you all so much.

All right.

Kelly, we still have work to do, and there's a bunch of people in the audience that have been waiting patiently, showed up two hours ago to testify, and we're getting to their resolution.

So why don't you read that into the record, and we'll invite presenters forward.

Resolution 31921, a resolution stating the City Council's intent to consider legislation in 2020 that would expand Chapter 1430 of the Seattle Municipal Code to require employers to provide employees with transit subsidies and to consult with City of Seattle departments and relevant stakeholders in the development of such legislation and related policies.

Thank you.

Why don't we do a quick?

We have more people coming.

So we'll do introductions in a second.

I'm going to just make a few overarching comments.

I really appreciated all the public testimony this morning.

Frankly, it's amazing that 20 folks turn out, or 24 folks, I think, when it was all said and done, all to talk about the potential benefits of what an Orca4All system would look like and how those that have access to transit really has access to so many more people in the city.

And unfortunately, the cases where people don't have access to transit and how hard that's been.

Councilmember Peterson, you're going to be around.

I won't.

And we're going to talk today about a resolution that really is just laying out some intent for where the council is going to go.

It's a privilege I will take on my last committee meeting to try to shape what's coming forward.

But obviously, I'm not the one here to shape it.

But community members, you are a continuing force through all this.

As seats change on the council, you're the ones that will continue to keep an eye on us and put pressure on us.

So now, why don't we go ahead and start with introductions?

Hi, I'm Karina Bull with Council Central Staff.

Ty Reed, Transit Writers Union field organizer.

I'm David Heldy.

I work for DESC, and I'm here representing SEIU 1199 Northwest.

Andrew Kovet, I'm an associate at Nelson Nygaard, representing Expedia Group.

I'm Jessica Scalzo, and I just do work with the Transit Writers Union.

I'm Katie Wilson, also with the Transit Writers Union.

Excellent.

Would you like to walk us through the resolution?

Yes.

Kelly provided a nice summary of what the resolution is seeking to accomplish.

As background, the council passed the commuter benefits ordinance.

It's codified as Seattle Municipal Code 14.30.

back in October 2018, and there's been a year of preparation for the law, and it's going to go into effect on January 1st of next year, 2020. And this law requires employers with 20 or more employees worldwide to allow their staff to make pre-tax payroll deductions for commuting expenses, not parking, and examples would be transit and vanpool expenses.

The city's Office of Labor Standards will implement this law.

They'll focus on outreach for the first year, helping employers to get it into place and for employees to be aware of this new right.

And they will begin enforcement of it on January 1st of 2021. So there will be a full year for employers and employees to become accustomed to this law.

It'll be put into place beginning in January, but there'll be a period of time where employers can seek assistance with implementing it and making sure that it's done absolutely accurate.

This resolution sets an intention for Council to strengthen the Commuter Benefits Ordinance through an amendment that would inquire employers to also provide employees with transit subsidies.

In developing this expanded legislation, the resolution recommends that Council consider the capacity of employers of different sizes, by sizes that means different numbers of employees.

to provide the transit subsidies, to also incorporate race and social justice principles, specifically apply a racial equity toolkit to determine how expanding the requirements would impact franchise business owners and their employees, and also to consult with the Office of Labor Standards and other stakeholders in development of the legislation and related policies.

The resolution specifically names two related policies, And one of those would be how the city can work with city contractors to make sure that their employees have transit subsidies and also working with nonprofits to develop ways for their employees to have transit benefits.

And one thing I don't think I mentioned is that the commuter benefits ordinance does not apply to nonprofits.

It applies to private employers with 20 or more employees worldwide.

Thank you, Karina, for that overview of the history.

Are excited for employers to hopefully be doing that commuter or the pre-tax deduction right away.

One of the reasons is they can save some money for themselves by doing it, and we have a lot of assistance out there to help people do it.

And thanks for outlining this resolution.

There's a lot of questions that are left unanswered in the resolution.

There's clear direction intent, but figuring out at what level, what size employees.

There's a lot of work that will need to be done in kind of hearing and gathering information and getting feedback, as we would do in a normal process.

And so, it's not necessarily prescriptive, but it's just saying, we know we need more than we have today, and let's figure out how to do that.

With that, Katie, I was going to maybe turn it over to you.

You've got a great group of folks assembled here.

And so, do you want to give some remarks and let others share their microphone?

Sure, yeah, I'll just keep it real brief, and then I think everyone probably has something they want to say.

So yeah, so the Transit Riders Union, we've been working on this issue for actually a very long time now, along with Councilmember O'Brien.

And we, in September, we launched a campaign that we've called Orca for All.

And the idea, as the name suggests, is we want everyone to have an Orca Pass, preferably an unlimited Orca Pass, because we know that the kind of just kind of freedom of access that that gives to people is really a game changer for how people move around the city, people's quality of life, especially folks who have trouble affording transportation costs.

And so we just think that this is kind of a natural next step.

And you know, when we were working on the commuter benefits ordinance that that, as Karina said, passed last year, this was already kind of in our minds as a next step to make sure that we are getting transit passes to as many people as possible and recognizing that especially lower wage workers in our city being one group of people that are often not getting a transit subsidy.

And just to add one thing to that, I mean, we, you know, we've been involved in work over the years to, for example, get the OrcaLift reduced fare program in place and a lot of other affordable or free transit programs.

And I think that the kind of lower wage worker demographic is actually You know, often it's people, many of them do qualify for ORCA Lift, but there's also a lot of folks who are just over the eligibility threshold for ORCA Lift and are having to pay full fare, but with our housing costs and other costs of living, are really struggling.

And so I think that requiring employers to subsidize transit for their employees is one really good way to kind of get at that demographic.

Anyone else?

Whoever wants to.

I don't mind speaking next.

Jessica, you don't seem super ready.

No worry, I myself am not that ready.

I think for me, the reason that I'm going into this and what I'd like to emphasize as we go forward, especially not knowing how this will look like in its final stages, is the ability of businesses to do this.

As we saw, like even Puget Sound Sage, a small nonprofit is able to do this for their workers.

And so as much as we'd like to have included in the legislation something that will Mitigate any kind of problems for smaller businesses or nonprofits.

I think that it's definitely doable and not just whether it's doable It's holding people who are bringing workers outside of their house accountable for that kind of stress that they're putting on the system we all pay into transit through like really regressive taxes most of the time and And people get to benefit from that by just giving out these passes to high-paid workers and saying, here's this pass, you get to use it, but who built the system that you're using and that you get to take advantage of?

And I think that as we go forward, I know that there's this idea, especially in the legislation, that we should wait to make sure that we bring big business to the table.

I feel like big business is totally willing to come to the table.

I've never heard that these hearings or these public comments were closed to people who work at large businesses.

And I'm not really hearing anything back from them about any legislation coming to these meetings.

And so just based off of the need of the people that are supposed to be represented by the council, the actual citizens of Seattle, I'd like to see those needs put forward first.

And if we do have to accommodate businesses in any way, maybe actually wait for businesses to come to the table first rather than assume deference to them.

Like, I feel like we tend to when we consider whether we're gonna tax or apply fees to businesses.

Yes, I like that.

I work at DESC, which is a nonprofit, so it may or may not actually be involved in this.

I was just at our joint labor management committee this morning and specifically asked management if they had any words that they would like to get passed along, and they said that they're all for it.

They love it.

They specifically don't want an unfan- excuse me, an unfunded mandate.

They would like some sort of assistance specifically for nonprofits.

Speaking just as a human services provider, which basically everybody at SEIU is, we're not well paid.

A huge number of my co-workers live in Tacoma, Federal Way, Auburn, Everett.

I know somebody that lives in Mount Vernon.

There's absurd commutes just to be able to come here and do what we do.

I know for some people, and the details don't make sense to me, but we're very lucky in that we do have a somewhat subsidized ORCA card.

It's $29 per month, which is better than it used to be, which used to be $4 per month.

So, A-S-E-I-U.

But for some reason, if you're living out that far, It's actually cheaper to not actually use the subsidy.

And there's weird details that don't make sense to me because I'm on Beacon Hill, so I just, you know, take the 36 or the light rail.

So it works for me.

But for a huge number of my coworkers, they have access to this subsidy, this $29 per month, and they just don't bother using it because it would actually cost them more money.

David, just to clarify, is it the case that if the subsidy were higher or that there were a full subsidy, that that would be good for those people?

Yes, it's this weird little window that the amount is that makes it more.

If it was a fully subsidized one, then it would count.

Then it would, you know, be more useful.

Sorry, I just want to add and I like hearing everybody's different stories in the way that passes get handed out and the benefit or transportation benefits get handed out.

When we create a system where it's extremely different across the board where some people have to sign up online and there's sometimes a cash back program, a rebate, some subsidy before or after taxes, it becomes confusing and people don't want to bother with confusing things.

I think once we make it easier and just across the board, your employer's buying directly from the transit agency a pass for you.

It's kind of taken care of and you don't have to worry about the confusion because like Pacific Northwest Transit Daddy said that if you have access to something but it's too complicated to use, it's almost as if you don't have it in general.

And so, you know, kind of simplifying these overly complex systems just so we can get at the heart of getting people using public transit.

I think the issue you raise, and thank you for being here and bringing those stories.

One, there's going to be some complex situations out there.

So for us to make sure we do the work to understand those dynamics and work with various providers to get as much information as we can as we design a program.

Two, the specific challenges around human service providers that contract with the city, county, other government agencies.

I think it would be tragic if we exempted you from a program because your workers are some of the workers that most need access to transit.

And as you mentioned, if we do that and expect somehow those agencies to come up with the funding to do it, it just takes money away from the other programs that you're trying to do.

So we do need to find it.

I would say not all nonprofits are the same.

And so specifically looking at the folks that contract with the city to provide human services is an area that we'll really want to focus on and really understand how that works.

So, great.

I would just mention to your point, one of the things that we've really focused on for Expedia Group is lowering the bar for employees to understand how to use the transit system.

There's not an equal understanding across everyone.

And so providing an ORCA pass, but specifically spending a lot of time with employees, helping them understand here, not only just how to ride a bus, but here's the whole bevy of transportation options.

Something that we found a huge uptick in ridership are van pools, which represent a really good way for a specific type of transit user.

The van pool system is not entirely intuitive, so spending time to make sure that you not only have the transit access, but that you understand how to really use it, I think is very important from an employer perspective to make sure their employees get the full benefit of what they're actually giving to them.

That's great.

And Richard, can you share a little bit about Expedia's program and what transit benefits you all offer employees and just like kind of what the impacts are for your workforce?

Yeah, absolutely.

So Expedia Group provides a fully subsidized ORCA card to all of their employees.

We have roughly 25% to 30% transit mode split for transit, and then an additional 5% to 10% for vanpool.

We recently moved to Elliott Bay, so the specific numbers are changing, but we were located in Bellevue.

Our direct adjacency to the Bellevue Transit Center was a huge benefit to employees.

We spend a lot of time in front of employees trying to make sure that they understand the benefit.

A lot of people are very familiar with what parking means, but you give them a ORCA pass and they're suddenly less familiar with how to actually use the benefit.

From Expedia's perspective, flexibility in the kind of the lifestyle of transit really fits to how our employees expect to have benefits.

And so making sure that we spend the time with employees to get them set up, whether it's a bus route or better understanding of sounder trains, things like that, really helps them.

And we have built our transportation benefits for employees around the flexibility that transit offers in a way that we would find difficulty without transportation to benefit employees like that.

That's great.

Can I say something on that?

Go, Jessica.

OK.

I was going to say, too, because to, I guess, piggyback on what he's saying is that, for the longest time, transportation has been built around the car.

So, I mean, a lot of people take public transportation, I understand that, and a lot of people still drive cars, so I think it's a whole system change, and it is gonna take a lot of outreach like you're talking about, getting people to want to take public transit, making it, like, appealing to people, and making it something that's going to be something that improves their lives and makes things easier for people.

And then, I also wanted to say that I believe it was at a budget meeting, and you said that Thurston County is doing free transit?

Was that the case?

Yeah, we heard a public comment today.

Someone came up from Olympia that starting January 1, their whole system will be free.

I think, you know, smaller transit system than King County for sure, but my understanding was their analysis was the cost to do fair enforcement.

was more than they would recover from the fares.

And they were at a point where they needed to upgrade their system.

And they said, well, why don't we just make it free?

I don't think the math is quite the same.

But obviously, we spend a lot of money on collecting fares, not just fare enforcement, but the machines to collect it, and the processing, and the printing of the ORCA cards, and all the systems that put money on it.

And so there's a lot of expense there to collect the money.

figuring out what a transition looks like.

And we have a statement of legislative intent.

Did we get that?

Yeah, we did.

Study it, right?

We have that that will be coming through.

So that'll be great to hear from the department, at least some steps that we can take in working with King County to move in that direction, hopefully.

So I have a question about that.

So in that study, are they going to be doing that calculation of, OK, what's the comparison of how much it takes for fare enforcement compared to people actually paying fares?

I don't know if we'll get that calculation.

There's probably people who have done those calculations out there.

I've seen them before.

I don't know if I've seen them for Seattle, but I know I've seen them.

I think because it's a countywide system and we're asking to do something citywide, there's complex questions.

If we were to have a system that was free in Seattle but not free everywhere, how does that work when you hop on a bus and come to Seattle or leave Seattle?

So just some questions like that to start thinking through what that system would look like if Seattle were to go before everyone else.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Anything else you all want to mention while I have you here at the table?

Yeah, I did have a comment for the contractor slash franchisee kind of issue because I think that will probably end up being a bigger issue that we run into whether contractors or franchisees are included.

And I'd just like to note that if we follow along with this logic that contractors shouldn't be included, we kind of fall into the trap that was laid out in front of us because the whole reason for the influx of so many, so much contract work, especially in the city like Seattle, is to avoid having to give people the full benefits.

And so trying not to look at people as differently because they're on a contract and seeing more as contract work as being a deliberate invention of a category to make sure that people are being denied certain access.

So instead of looking at it as like this problem area that we should be conceding to business for, looking at it as the category that it's been created to be.

I appreciate that.

That's a really good point.

So thank you for making that.

We do hear a lot of folks that try to avoid costs by switching the classification of workers or using other agencies to bring them in.

And you're absolutely right.

Those are the folks that are often the most in need of having these services.

And we need to make sure that they're included in the system.

So thank you.

Any other questions or thoughts?

Or we can move to the actual discussion of the legislation.

We have a couple amendments to discuss to the resolution.

And there's just two.

Commitment one and amendment two.

One's brought forward by me.

One's brought forward by Council Member Peterson.

So maybe we'll just take them in that order and walk through them and have a discussion about them and see where we want to go, if that's okay.

So actually, Kelly, do you mind presenting on amendment number one?

Sure, so this is amending specifically the scope of the racial equity toolkit analysis.

In section B it says, the legislation should incorporate race and social justice principles and reflect the application of the racial equity toolkit to determine how, and then scratch out, employer requirements would impact employers and their employees.

And the intention here is to really broaden the scope of the racial equity toolkit to look at all facets of the policy and ensure that you're using an RSJ analysis for both the employers and the employees.

And the language in the underlying legislation focused on franchise business owners, and we want this to be much more broad.

I support that.

I'd like to move that amendment.

Great.

I will second it.

Thank you.

So, all in favor of adopting Amendment 1 to the resolution, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

None opposed.

So, that amendment is there.

Councilor Peterson, you want to walk us through Amendment 2?

Sure.

So, taking a step back, the ORCA for All vision is very compelling, and I look forward to working with you all going forward.

And so the intent of this amendment is really just to flesh out some of the details.

And I know this is a resolution to do an ordinance, which will really flesh out the details, but I think this provides a little bit more guidance to the full city council.

So what it's doing is it's not changing any of the whereases and it's changing section one and a little bit of section two.

So section one, currently says that it's going to take into account the differing abilities of employers to absorb the costs.

So the amendment starts out, maybe I should just read the whole amendment.

So it would now read, section one would read, the city council intends to consider legislation in 2020 that would expand the commuter benefits ordinance chapter 14.30 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

to require employers to provide employees with transit subsidies while taking into consideration the differing, and then it changes it or adds something, the differing incomes of employees and their ability to afford transit costs, and then it continues with what's already there, the differing abilities of employers to absorb these costs.

And then I add and administer the transit subsidies and based on the number of employees, and then it adds, so it starts with number of employees as being the key factor that will be looked at, but then adds some other factors to consider.

So in other factors, that could include the personnel resources available to administer the transit subsidies, the displacement risks facing the employer's organization or business, and other factors indicating or impacting Or excuse me or other factors impacting the financial well-being of the employers Organization or business so strike that indicating or I don't know where that came from So the intent here is really to look at more specifics about the ability of employees to afford what I'm concerned about here is that I we would be requiring a subsidy to people who are making over $200,000 a year and they're getting a benefit that they don't already have, whereas I'd rather, I'm very curious as to how we can provide that benefit to lower income workers that really need it.

So looking at the incomes of the employees and their ability to afford the transit costs.

Was that the item that you were most concerned about or was it the, okay.

I want to speak to that and then we can dive into the rest.

And so I appreciate the clarification.

We haven't had a chance to discuss this.

So this is great.

People get to see this play out in real time, which is not a bad thing.

I would love, I'd like to suggest that we perhaps hold this one for now.

And I'd love to get a chance for some community members to look through that.

I support the intent.

When I read this, I can read it a number of different ways.

And so I'd maybe love to take a little time between today and Monday to work with you on language to bring to the full council and maybe get some feedback from some of the folks at the table here to find a way that that would work.

And then I think the other ones all, let's talk through the rest of it too.

Just for folks, there's two of us, and if we disagree on amendment, then it doesn't pass.

So we could bring it up for a vote and do that, but my preference would be to just go that way.

But let's talk through the other ones, because I think those make sense to bring in right now.

Yes, subsection B, we can ignore that because the amendment number one that we just passed would supersede the changes to subsection B.

So then we get to section two, and it's really just saying relevant stakeholders include employers.

So just being clear that That includes them.

Thank you, Expedia, for being here today.

And DESC, because, you know, the difference between, like, not all nonprofits are the same here.

So it's important to get all these employers to the table.

Section three is really talking about, this is where we get into asking our human services department to develop solutions for employees, to get these transit benefits to employees city contractors.

So I amended the language to just make it clear it's not the city government directly providing that benefit, but it's doing it through the contractor.

So the council should consult with the Human Services Department and other City of Seattle departments to develop solutions to ensure transit benefits can be provided to employees of City of Seattle contractors.

I do also want to mention section four, it just stays the way it is, but it says the council should consult with nonprofits to develop solutions for providing transit benefits to employees.

That brings up something on the fiscal note that I'm hoping, you know, just want to offer a suggestion that we beef that up a little bit on the fiscal note where we're talking about the summary of financial implications.

So the fiscal note talks about does this legislation have other financial impacts to the city of Seattle that are not reflected in the above direct or indirect short-term or long-term costs?

Just sort of introducing the concept that if One of the ways that contractors could provide these benefits to their employees is if the city government provides those funds to do that.

And so that would potentially impact the general fund.

And so I just sort of want to be transparent about that potentiality.

And so in the fiscal note, Karina, if you want to speak to that, just sort of laying out that if nonprofit organizations providing these services, you know, think they need funds from the city, this could impact a request to the general fund to provide those.

I have a question for you, Council Member O'Brien.

Can you explain more about the intent of Section 4?

Because it's not clear maybe whether the intent is to consult with nonprofits for nonprofit employers to provide transit benefits to their employees or for the city to provide.

transit benefits to the employees of nonprofits.

So who is envisioned as the provider of the transit benefits for that section?

That is an intentionally open-ended question.

Well, there you have it.

Okay.

So I think that we would...

Nonprofits is a big sector, certainly for service providers that essentially rely on the city or other government agencies exclusively for their funding.

They don't have a way to raise their rates other than to come to us and say, we need more money.

So that would likely be, as Council Member Peterson said, that would be something that would have a budget impact if we did that.

There's a lot of other nonprofits that function very differently, and so those might have different results.

I don't, Council Member Peterson, I've been here 10 years, I've never actually amended a fiscal note.

I don't think that's really us.

I think that's your work.

Generally fiscal notes aren't amended because they often reflect legislation that is different from the final product.

And so generally they are not amended to reflect changes in legislation because there often can be so many changes in the legislation.

But this I don't think this would be a change in the legislation is just sort of expanding that it may ultimately lead to a general fund.

expenditure to support the nonprofits that are trying to provide this transit subsidy.

So just a suggestion that we, you know, amplify that point or expand that just so other council members when they're, you know, a lot of them will just look at the fiscal note for a lot of the answers to stuff and having that there will be helpful, I think.

And that brings up a good point in terms of the fiscal note.

I'm excited to sort of work on the format of the fiscal note.

And one of the things I'd like to do is expand it to take into account some environmental factors.

In this case, there's a lot of great stuff to talk about.

Kathy Tuttle, who ran for City Council in District 4, proposed something called a carbon note.

So to look at the carbon impacts of our legislation, like we look at the fiscal impacts.

That could even be expanded to sort of environmental issues in general.

And so this is where you could actually, you know, we could even talk.

I'm not saying to do it for this one.

I just want to introduce the concept to talk about the benefits we're getting from a climate change perspective, reducing our carbon footprint here, reducing emissions by getting more people to use transit.

It's just sort of a thought when we make policy, one end of the fiscal impact, but also be curious as to what the environmental impact was.

So stay tuned for that later, but we'll get back to the ordinance or the resolution.

close the loop on the fiscal.

The language I don't have any problems with.

I don't know procedurally, though, what to do.

So if I could just request that you all can talk and figure out how we do this and whatever happens.

I don't think I need to take action there.

But if we do, we can bring that back on Monday.

Thank you.

And then let's go back to the the actual resolution language.

Yes a section 2 we're adding just including employers Could I suggest a friendly amendment to just say employers and employees just to name them both?

Great.

I know it's the intent in there anyways, but yes, if you'd accept as a friendly amendment, yes and then on section 3 I heard you we strike the word for a And just a typo there.

That's right.

Thank you.

And I support that.

So if you want to move the Section 2 and Section 3 amendments with those minor changes.

Yes, I'd like to move the Section 2, Section 3 changes.

Karina, are you tracking what we're doing here?

I'm taking notes.

Great.

Okay.

I can review the tape.

Great.

I will second that.

And then all in favor of that amendment signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

And then you and I can work going towards a full council.

Yes.

I think.

Yes.

We can do that.

We want to do this in transparency.

Right.

And recognize the Open Public Meeting Act stuff.

So we're, we'll have some conversations with that.

Great.

Do you all have a copy of this language?

Nope.

Okay.

I've been looking over.

Here.

We will hand this to you and would love some feedback in the next, we don't have a lot of time here, but the next day or so and just see if we can find language.

It may be that my read is just in my brain and you all can figure out a way to.

Language that addresses what you said earlier in a way that makes sense and maybe it's just as it is but If you if you're comfortable doing that you're certainly welcome to one thing I just wanted to say that came to mind is Councilmember Peterson as you're reading this was just on the question of differing incomes of employees and their ability to afford transit costs I think two points one is just that you know in our experience in a survey that we did earlier this year, higher income workers are very, very likely to be getting transit subsidies already from their employers.

And given that this legislation has a strong kind of climate change component and a congestion component, I don't really see any downside to requiring that you know, employers are also providing transit subsidies to their high income employees.

I mean, that's not a cost to the city, right?

It's something that probably those employers should be doing anyway to mitigate the effects on transit or congestion in the environment.

So, you know, I don't mind having that in there, but I also just think that it's, I don't see a reason to necessarily treat people differently because of different incomes.

I appreciate that, and we actually spoke beforehand, so we've talked a couple times, so thanks for getting that on the record.

That's an important point that a lot of people miss, is that...

You know, we do need to focus on the climate benefit, too, and we need to realize that, yeah, higher income people are probably already getting this.

So, it may be an administrative burden also to actually do this analysis of what is every employee getting.

I just wanted to sort of throw that out there in terms of, you know, the goal is to help lower income workers, but with the climate benefits, and if they're already getting the benefit as a higher income earner, then it may not be worth it to do this amendment.

And for me, that also stood out to me mostly because, yeah, the goal isn't exactly to help low-income workers.

It's to create equity in the system that already exists, and that's kind of a bit of a difference in the sense that when we look at focusing on low-income people, it becomes a welfare project.

And that, especially in a city like Seattle, is unlikely to pass or to be approved by all people.

And I think that ORCA for All means ORCA for Everybody.

Like Katie said, we want rich people to be riding the bus, too.

So that's why I think putting that income in there makes it seem as if this program is designed specifically to help low-income people, and then it becomes a low-income program.

And like all programs in the United States, and especially in wealthy cities, they become victim to shame and stigma when you associate them with poor people.

And so, ORCA for all, for it to be successful and for it to realize the actual goals that we've set out about lowering our emissions, it needs to include everybody.

Unfortunately, it's every working person, and so in that way, it kind of eliminates people.

If you don't have an employer, this doesn't apply to you.

But it needs to apply to all workers.

Otherwise, it kind of weakens what we're trying to go at right now.

Great.

I mean, thank you for, those are great comments.

So, thank you.

I appreciate that, too.

I recall hearing a woman from Finland, I believe, speaking at U-Dub about preschool for all and a similar point.

And in their country, what they did is, you know, it disproportionately benefits low-income families.

But this was designed specifically to make sure everyone had access to preschool, including higher-income folks, too, and I think along the lines of what you said.

So we'll have some more conversation.

We'll see what we bring back.

Really appreciate the work on that.

propose that we move the resolution as is with the amendments that we adopted today.

So all in favor of that.

Oh yeah, I moved, you second.

All in favor of that signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Great.

So the resolution will go to the full council.

Thank you for your vote, Jessica, I appreciate it.

You're on your way to being a council member.

So easy.

So Alex, did you know that you could have another route?

All you have to do is raise your hand.

Show up.

Show up, yeah.

Many ways to do things.

I really appreciate having you all here and the different perspectives that you all have on this.

And I really look forward to being part of the conversation in a very different role next year, because I think this is something that I'm excited to work on.

And Council Member Peterson, I'm excited to see what you all come up with.

Great.

Great.

Thank you all.

And we'll move on to the next agenda item.

Thank you.

All right.

Setting the stage for the Green New Deal in 2020. Great.

I'm going to invite presenters forward.

Come on up.

And once you're seated, why don't we do a quick round of introductions?

You can go first, Jess.

Sure.

Hi, I'm Jess Wallach with 350 Seattle.

I'm Yolanda Matthews with Puget SoundSAGE.

I'm Brittany Bouchboulé.

I'm with Sierra Club.

Thank you all so much for being here.

I wanted to give the public a bit of an overview on the Green New Deal, where we are today.

and have a chance for the folks that are at the table to talk about what we think comes next.

And so I want to start by just reminding folks where we are.

We passed a Green New Deal legislation earlier this year in August.

This was the city's version to figure out how to take on the mantle of some amazing leadership at the national level.

It's really exciting to have this Green New Deal concept out there.

Unfortunately, the current situation in Washington, D.C.

is not likely that that's gonna pass sometime this year, but hopefully relatively soon.

But because of the challenges we face around climate change, we can't afford to wait for federal leadership on this thing.

And so, as a result of very impressive action on the part of so many folks that were here at City Hall back in June.

We got this resolution passed, and it's really exciting that we do that.

And that resolution does a number of things, including a bold leap to eliminating climate pollution in the city by the year 2030. create thousands of jobs and advance an equitable transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, prioritizing investments in communities historically most harmed by economic, racial, and environmental injustices.

Together, the city and the council and the frontline communities community organizations work to lay out a vision and groundwork for future legislations that would affirm the federal Green New Deal resolution sponsored by U.S.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

So that's one thing that we did.

We also passed legislation that set up the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

That work is likely to start early next year to actually put the members of the board.

During the budget, we put funding into the Office of Sustainability and Environment to Both hire a position to oversee the work of that board, a city staff person, and also fund subsidies for folks that are, or stipends I should say, for folks that are on that board but need to receive compensation for their, for the time that they're putting into that too.

So the pieces are in place.

I want to let people know that applications for that board will be beginning in early 2020. I believe you can go to the website for the Office of Sustainability and Environment, I should say that slowly so people are tracking it, the Office of Sustainability and Environment, and there should be some information up on that website as to I don't know that we have the exact timing down, but there'll be a way to track that when people go to that website.

The last thing I want to mention is a piece of legislation that introduced earlier this year around, called Healthy Homes, Healthy Buildings.

This legislation would, as stated, would require the transition for new construction to be all electric buildings as opposed to using natural gas for heating air, heating water, other natural gas uses in a building.

That legislation is not going to pass today.

And so as the person introduced it, I want to just let the public know that there's ongoing conversations with a lot of community members.

I've been part of some roundtable discussions with folks focused on mid-rise and high-rise buildings and where gas is being used today and where it's not already.

It's already essentially been phased out because of either energy code regulations or just the market is shifted to what people are doing.

I've been part of conversations with the restaurant industry, having similar conversations.

The legislation that was introduced had an exemption for restaurants.

But in a world where we need to be climate pollution free by 2030, we'll need to figure out how restaurants adapt to that reality.

And so we're having conversations with them.

kind of one-on-one conversations with a number of industrial users in Seattle, specifically cement plants, steel plant, glass recycling facility, major medical institution, all that have somewhat unique needs and use a lot of natural gas right now to really understand that.

There's ongoing work to figure out how to refine that legislation.

Again, I will not be here to be a council member refining that.

This legislation will remain introduced to the council and will shift to whatever committee takes on sustainability work in the new year.

So that'll be obviously a different council member because it won't be me.

I don't know.

I think we're still a little ways away from knowing what the committee's structures are.

Wherever sustainability work lands, that will be the likely place where this legislation will continue to be introduced and there'll just be some work with whoever that committee chair is to see that through, if that committee chair wants to do that.

Great.

I want to give a summary to the public on some of the budget-related actions that happened for the Green New Deal.

And so there's six items that happened in there, and so this is a quick overview.

We requested that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections prepare a proposal to limit siting of new fossil fuel production and storage facilities.

This is something that King County Council has done.

And we have some work going on part of our comprehensive plan But this is an additional piece asking them to look at things like the shoreline master program And other updates that we may want to consider for Making sure that those sighting of those facilities will not occur in the city The second action was request Seattle City Light, the Seattle Department of Transportation, the Office of Sustainability and Environment to report on transition to complete electrification of all transportation and buildings in Seattle.

So this is a...

major transition.

There's a lot of questions that came up from the legislation.

The legislation was really just about new construction.

But the idea that we're going to from the Green New Deal be climate pollution free by 2030 would require a pretty significant shift.

And so really understanding is our electric grid ready to accommodate that or what are the things that need to happen over the next decade to ensure that we can have that future.

And so Excited about the department's doing that work.

It's building on some work that's already happening.

Obviously, we've been talking about transportation electrification for a while, and City Light has been looking at more ways to electrify buildings, but this will help give us some data and understanding about how we can be that city we want to be.

A third one, request City Light to report on the Seattle City Light's strategic planning in accordance with Seattle's Green New Deal resolution.

That will come back, both of these will come back July 31st, 2020. A fourth is a request that the office of sustainability establish high road contracting standards for electrical contractors.

I would envision that if we are going to transition people that use gas furnaces to using kind of high efficiency electric heat pumps for heating, that will require removing something in our house and putting something new in.

That has some expense.

We want to figure out what, can everyone afford to do that?

And recognize that for a lot of people that may be a significant expense.

We want to have investments in place to make that.

And we want to ensure that the workers doing that work are high road folks.

And so this is asking Off Sustainability and Environment to set up a program similar to what we did during some of the weatherization work.

earlier in the, you know, a few years ago.

So, two other things I'll just mention.

We added a full-time strategic advisor to support the Green New Deal Oversight Board, so mentioned that already, and the stipends.

And then we also added $100,000 to Office of Economic Development to conduct an analysis of regional employment that's dependent on the fossil fuel industry.

And that report should be presented to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee, I'm guessing it probably won't be titled that in the future, but whatever the successor committee of that is, and submitted to the Council Central Staff Executive Director and Green New Deal Oversight Board by June 30th of 2020. So, a lot of pieces that are moving forward in 2020, but I wanna stop and turn it over to the community members that are really responsible for this work happening.

And we'll carry a lot of that weight to ensure that things continue to move in 2020. And so, Jess, maybe I'll turn it over to you and let you all tell us what your visions are and how that's going to work.

Great.

Thank you for that segue.

In just a moment, I'm actually going to hand it over to my colleagues to talk about priorities from communities.

But I do want to take a second to introduce some community context around the legislation that Mike just talked about.

350 Seattle and Got Green back in June of this year launched the Seattle Fair Green New Deal campaign.

We brought about 100 folks to City Hall.

We delivered a letter to the mayor.

We sang, and I was told you could hear it outside the building.

And we, in that moment, recognized that Seattle has had this long-standing reputation as a climate leader, and yet our emissions were going up.

And beyond talking about climate pollution, people were getting pushed out of our city, folks were not able to be housed here, folks were not able to find good green jobs here.

We had a lot of justice issues related to our climate pollution, and we needed transformative action at the scale of the crisis.

that was going to address all of those solutions together.

So when we set out in June, we invited our communities to join us in calling for transformative action at the scale of the crisis, specifically eliminating Seattle's climate pollution by 2030 and doing it by addressing historic injustices and creating thousands of good green jobs.

And in the time since, 10,000 Seattleites have signed our petition saying that they too support this vision for Seattle's future.

Over 10,000.

Whoa, nice work.

Yes, and I should lift up the hundreds of grassroots volunteers who helped make that happen.

Folks were out at farmers markets, at neighborhood meetings, at festivals.

I heard about a lot of people having folks over for dinner and sliding the petition around.

There's been a lot of community conversation around this, and for good reason.

It's a vision that excites many of us because it's a chance for a healthy, thriving future for all.

In addition to those 10,000 Seattleites, we've seen 250 local businesses, community organizations, and institutions ranging from the Wing Luke Museum to many communities of faith signing on to the vision for Seattle's Green New Deal.

And that work has allowed 350 Seattle and Got Green and many of our partners, some of whom are represented at this table, to come to city council and to work in partnership with council members to lift up community priorities for what transformative climate action should look like and to ensure that Seattle, as one of the wealthiest cities and one of the wealthiest nations, on the planet and one that's most responsible for climate change is doing our part to cartel catastrophic climate change and to make this city the just and thriving place that we know it can be.

So I'm going to turn it over to Yolanda to talk about some of the priorities that we've been hearing from our communities and how we can make sure that the commitments on paper in 2019 translate into powerful action in 2020.

So yeah, so just introduce myself again.

I'm Yolanda Matthews.

I work at Puget Sound SAGE as a community justice organizer.

Sorry, climate justice organizer.

So we have been working on a national project with the cities of Atlanta and also Washington, D.C.

to kind of just gain an idea of where folks, how, where and how folks understand what it means to actually see some of the things that cities are offering as options for renewable energy and energy efficiency implementation.

If they actually align with what the community has as their idea of these technologies or just their current situation?

Does it actually align?

And so we had the chance to approach the community in many different ways.

We approached them with listening sessions, we did community surveys, and we also interviewed community leaders to just gauge where their understanding is and what they generally think of of these programs that the city is wanting to implement.

So these leaders were consisted of like CBO leaders, grassroots organizing leaders, union leaders, and even government partners.

And all told, we approached approximately 420 to about 450 folks just between the listening sessions, the surveys, and the interviews with community.

And so here are some of the things that we actually heard when asking the question, what are Green New Deal priorities that you see in your community?

So expanding free and electrifying public transportation.

And what that doesn't look like is investing in single occupancy electric vehicle infrastructure.

Pairing housing with transit with jobs development.

So in other words, better land use planning.

More education, outreach, and money going to utility bill assistance.

When we were approaching community, many of our community members, they need the assistance, they want the assistance, but they're not utilizing it because they don't know that, they either don't know about it or they don't know that they qualify for it.

And one of the barriers to their understanding of actually receiving those benefits or those subsidies or whatever they are is a language barrier.

And so making sure that we actually get, we're actually literally speaking the language of the folks that are in community.

So providing the actual literature that is in their language and then also even providing, as another suggestion, providing an opportunity for folks to come into community and actually speak to them face-to-face, again, in their own language.

on their own time, so not having things that are, or community roundtable sessions that are at off times when folks are normally going to be at work.

And so a lot of the stories that we heard in our listening sessions, for example, were that people were putting about one-thirds of their income to utility bills and, again, just not knowing about the programs.

And when we approach folks, we do also need to remember that we need to take into account that receiving public assistance does actually jeopardize some of our immigrant and refugee populations when thinking about people's citizenship applications under this Trump administration.

More education, more outreach, and money going to weatherization and energy efficiency improvements.

And then when we're asking the question, what do you and your organization want city council to focus on next year, focus on passing responsible, real solutions versus false solutions, and initiatives that create dedicated funding to making sure that all that I've just mentioned is equitably, happens equitably for marginalized communities of color here in Seattle.

So what we need for our leaders, for you all, well, you in particular, is improvement.

And then before you leave, if you can make it happen in the next couple of days.

is improving public transit, building more affordable energy efficient housing, funding solar, wind, and other forms of renewable energy production, providing financial and technical support to implement energy efficiency upgrades, increasing green space and public parks, healthy, nutritious, affordable food for all, so continuing to support those programs like Fresh Bucks.

financial and training support for workers who are going to be entering and transitioning to the renewable energy sector to ensure that the transition to renewable energy leaves no one behind.

Thank you, Yolanda.

And Yolanda, do you have a copy of this report that you can provide?

So we're actually in the midst of analyzing all of the data and contracting someone to actually get this written as an actual document, as an actual report.

So that should be ready by, I would say, end of January of next year, 2020. So yes, I can provide that to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

Again, I'm Brittany Bush-Bolay.

I'm with the Sierra Club.

First of all, I want to thank you so much, Council Member O'Brien, for your leadership on this issue, and thank you in advance for whichever of the council members next year will be taking up the mantle of this work.

I look forward to working with them on it.

I'm gonna echo probably a lot of what Yolanda said, but that's because there's a wide consensus around the different groups of people in our communities on what we wanna see next year and the years beyond in Seattle.

As you know, there's two main sources of climate pollution in our city, which are buildings and transportation, and those two are inextricably linked.

I'm gonna talk first about housing.

We want to end apartment bans.

Different people want different kinds of homes.

We need to build these homes all over the city as well, not just on transit corridors, not just on arterials.

But people want choice.

People of all incomes want a choice in where to live, and they need to be able to live near parks if they want, and schools if they want, and libraries if they want, and not just on busy roads, where they're inhaling a lot of emissions.

It's not equitable.

These homes need to be safe.

They need to be healthy.

They need to be free of fossil fuels to the best of our ability.

We need to use clean electricity to keep us warm and fed.

We recognize the real concerns, of course, of the labor groups that we've been talking to as we work through the process of trying to figure out how we're going to stop digging this hole of fossil fuels.

And we know that we all want to get to the same place.

How we get there, we'll talk about it.

But the goal is to make our buildings as rapidly and as widely as possible free of fossil fuels in Seattle.

The other part, transportation.

We're really excited the mayor is showing a real commitment to reducing car-based pollution with her support of congestion pricing.

But for us to support it, it must, it must have a strong equity lens.

And I look forward to engaging with the mayor's office on this over the next year.

I know that they promised to do some very extensive outreach.

It must have a strong equity lens.

It must have a strong community outreach, especially in marginalized communities, especially in communities where there are language barriers.

People who are generally excluded from these processes.

And it must include robust transit improvements to make it fair and to make it successful.

And when we say robust transit, we mean transit that works for everyone.

Everyone.

It needs to be financially accessible.

So that means it could mean free fares.

It could mean subsidized or co-cards for everyone.

There's a lot of ways to get there, but everyone needs to be able to afford to take the bus.

Everyone needs to be physically able to take transit.

That means that the escalators have to work.

That means the elevators have to work.

It means that bus stops need to be sheltered.

It means that bus stops need to have seating.

I hear from people, the same people who can't stand on the bus because of age or disabilities, they can't stand at the bus stop.

And it needs to be psychologically accessible.

It needs to be free of fear and intimidation that's brought on by presence of fair enforcement.

I'm going to be real.

I hear more and more people saying, I won't take the light rail anymore.

We are running people away from transit because we're making them afraid and uncomfortable.

fear of fair enforcement, fear of home insecurity, or any other presences that make people feel unsafe riding transit is working against our climate goals.

So as we go into 2020 and beyond, I want to keep these voices in mind and these goals as we move towards a truly equitable, really climate justice work that we're all here together to do.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

That really resonated.

And I would just like to add a few points, again, lifting up what you've shared.

But there is not only wide consensus, but I think a lot of community energy to see these Green New Deal strategies move forward.

So just to name a few, we know that we need to see a massive investment in affordable housing coupled with anti-displacement strategies.

There are over 11,000 houseless folks here in Seattle.

This is a moral issue.

And it's probably one of the most impactful kind of bang for our buck when it comes to climate strategy.

And it's an incredible job creator.

And that's exactly what the heart of the Green New Deal is, is the intersection of justice, pollution reduction, and good green jobs.

We know that we need to prioritize walking, biking, busing over single passenger vehicles, which are accountable for over half of our city's climate pollution.

And beyond reducing emissions, this also cleans up our air.

This makes our streets safer.

And this means less traffic and more access to educational opportunities, jobs, community spaces, food, people getting around the city in ways that work for them.

We are really excited to be working for free and 100% clean transit for all neighborhoods here in Seattle.

And then we also need to see some common sense action, put it that way.

We are talking about big, big transformation in how our city will be, how it will be to get around.

walk around, work here, live here, play here.

There are some things that we can do right now without huge amounts of money to begin taking meaningful action on climate.

And one of those is making sure that as we are figuring out what our big, bold investments are, we continue to stop digging the climate hole deeper.

We stop building new fossil fuels into our city.

So that looks like continuing the work that we started this year with a healthy homes, healthy buildings policy.

figuring out what we can do in 2020 to lay the groundwork for a full and equitable transition for the remainder of the city's 160,000 homes that are already powered by fossil fuel infrastructure to transition to clean energy.

And that will take funding.

My colleagues mentioned that we're going to need funding.

And so I just want to reiterate that we need progressive revenue sources.

We need to make sure that the transition to a clean energy economy into a healthy climate future is not on the backs of the folks most impacted by the crisis.

And that's a place where we know in community that we will be far more powerful if we have council advocates working with us to figure out what are going to be the most effective and most equitable ways to raise the money that we need to create a more healthy, just future for all.

So we look forward to working with you and your colleagues.

We thank you so much, Council Member O'Brien, for your leadership on this.

And I say, as we move into 2020, it's exciting to see what is possible when we have council members really listening to the needs of community and doing what they can within powerful institutions to transform the way that we make policy, center community priorities and solutions, and together make a city that works for all of us.

Well, thank you all.

I really appreciate you all being here and the work you've done.

You know, my 10 years on the council, I've got to work on a range of issues, a lot of which I'm really proud of.

And as I get to the end of that 10 years, I find I'm more energized than ever, in large part because of the Green New Deal work that you all brought to us this summer and built on.

And it's a little odd place to be where I'm just about to ramp down, but I feel like I'm ready to go 100 miles an hour again.

I'm excited to find how I engage in this work, but I imagine that I'll be reaching out to you all to find ways as a non-council member to be continuing to do this work, because it's really powerful.

You all talked about a vision that is something that resonates with me really deeply, and I think Seattle is ready to be one of the leaders on this, and we have potential to do some great work next year.

I mentioned earlier that I'm going to call you and email you, but I may not be able to actually do that.

because of the rules as a former council member and what I'm allowed to do, lobbying and stuff.

So just in case Wayne Barnett's watching this, make sure to check in with the ethics and election team to know what to do.

And so if you don't hear from me, it's not because I'm mad at you or anything, it's just because Wayne said I can't hear.

But if I am allowed to, I believe I can come and testify, so you might hear me that way.

So anyways, thank you all so much for your work.

There's a part of me that's disappointed that the legislation, the healthy homes, the healthy buildings is not going to be passed this year.

But there's a part of me that's actually really excited because some of the conversations we're having have been really powerful.

As I've learned, I think as you know, Councilmember, from your time on the floor, that taking the time to really engage in some deep conversations, we can actually make the legislation even better for everyone.

And I'm partway through figuring some of that stuff out.

And as you mentioned, Brittany, whoever steps into this role next year, hopefully they'll carry on that work.

And I'm happy to play a role in however I can in moving that forward too.

So thank you all.

Councilor Peterson, do you have any?

A lot of people were talking to you, not to me, so if you have any comments or feedback or questions, feel free to.

Thank you for arranging this agenda.

I mean, it's amazing who you brought to the table, and it's powerful, and we will be watching it, you know, over and over and meeting with you in person.

So thanks for being here today.

Thanks a ton.

Thanks.

All right.

Yeah.

I want to acknowledge Matt Remley from Asaska Talks, who's been part of this work, is in the audience today, wasn't at the table, but Matt, you've been at the table before, so thanks for your work.

Also want to acknowledge my former staffer, Avanya, is in the office today.

I think she's working from home, technically.

I hope her boss is okay with that.

But it's good to see you here today, too.

There's one last agenda item.

I'm not exactly sure how this plays out.

Councilmember Peterson, you've had the benefit of sitting through a three-hour committee meeting with me.

I'm glad I've got one of those in for you.

So I'm not sure what happens next.

Kelly?

Mike, you have been an amazing council member for 10 years, and you've been one of the kind of elected leaders that many folks in community have come to.

And you have lifted up ideas and created policy that has transformed the city for the better.

And many, many people are very thankful for your years of dedicated service.

And our wonderful staffer Leslie Daniels made a wonderful video just to commemorate your time on council.

So we're going to play that for you.

I have not seen this yet.

I'm really excited, a little nervous, but most excited.

I've grown so much as a person in the last 10 years and have connected with so many amazing community members that are now, I feel, part of my life.

I'm really proud of what we've accomplished together.

When I first decided to run for office 11 years ago, I had been a volunteer with the Sierra Club for a number of years and had worked a lot on environmental issues, especially around climate change, transportation, land use.

The realities that we're starting to see because of the impacts of climate change in our city and around the country, around the planet, whether it's droughts or floods or storms or forest fires or our ability to grow food or get fish from the sea, all those things, and our ability to adapt to those changes is going to be in large part driven by how wealthy you are.

Seattle City Councilman Mike O'Brien, who has taken a stand on this both with his mouth and also with his kayak.

Seattle has a long history of civil disobedience, and this is something that's just so counter to everything that Seattle stands for.

We try to think of ourselves as leaders on fighting climate change.

No one should be drilling in the Arctic.

Our ability to adapt to those changes is going to be in large part driven by how wealthy you are, how much power you have.

Who is this guy, Mike O'Brien?

And you know, as I reflected on that, I don't think I really knew who I was going to be either.

I mean, I knew I'd fight for climate change because that's something I've been fighting for.

But the other issues that I've worked on, I did not predict that those were things I've worked on.

And the reason that I've evolved in the way I have isn't because of some innate sense in me.

It's because of the community members I've interacted with.

This isn't just random about where people live and who's impacted.

This is by decades of structural racism that's been part of our city and our country that has led people to this point.

And if we really want to undo the damage of climate change, we also need to undo that structural racism.

They're intertwined.

City council members do have a lot of power.

And there's a small handful of people that know the power that we hold and really try to influence it.

And most of those folks are very well financed.

Often they're from major corporations and they have paid lobbyists and paid staff and they're working constantly to shape the narrative of the city.

The problem is that It's disproportionate who has that power and there's so many other people that are directly impacted by the decisions we make who aren't even aware that we're making the decisions, let alone know how to come in and talk to someone about it or even have the power to think they're going to change the outcome.

When I had a chance to work with community members who are going to be impacted by a policy decision and get to truly build a relationship with them and help them help me make a policy that will actually make a positive outcome in their life.

But it's also amazing to see people who thought that this system was designed for other people and all of a sudden feel like, no, they actually have some access and they have some power.

And all the things that now they may want to change in our society, that excitement, that spark you see in their eye, I got a list of things that I want to change now that I know at least a piece of how the system works.

Democracy shouldn't just be about a handful of elite, powerful, wealthy people that choose policy.

It should be that everyone has equal access to it.

And I'm grateful for the partnerships I've built.

I have also benefited personally so much from those relationships.

And I come out of this job a completely different human being than when I started 10 years ago.

But I want them to know that I got so much more out of that investment.

And I'm just so grateful for the richness and the joy that my life has absorbed because of their investment in me.

And I hope that I can someday pay that back.

It's been amazing.

I look forward to working with all of you in new ways in the new year.

And I've got two more days of work to do too, so let's see how we get through that.

There is a bit of a celebration going on downstairs and I hope you all come on down.

You're invited there.

Oh, we have some work to do.

We just have to make sure that you move everything.

Council on Monday.

So Council Member Peterson, I would move to suspend the rules to allow all the agenda items we pass to move on to the full council on Monday.

Second.

Great, thank you for doing that.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Great, so the rules are suspended.

Kelly, please make sure these get on the agenda on Monday, otherwise I won't get a chance to vote on them.

I will.

Especially the appointments, I really want to do that.

You all, thank you so much.

Council Member Peterson, thanks for being here.

I look forward to coming back in 10 years and watching your video.

Thank you.

And with that, we're adjourned.