Public Safety Committee 9/22/2026

And good morning.

The Public Safety Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.35 a.m.

September 22, 2026. I'm Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Juarez?

Here.

Council Member Lynn?

Here.

Council Member Rivera?

Councilmember Saka.

Good morning, here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present, zero excused.

Yes, we have four committee members present.

Councilmember Rivera's excused until she's here and then also we have Councilmember Strauss in a way pitch hitting coming in for his legislation but also for this important first topic.

Normally I give chair comments at the beginning of each committee meeting.

Today what I do want to do instead is call for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

It is important to do so, to center ourselves, to remember those loss, and to focus on the tragedy, how the tragedy occurred, and how to avoid such a tragedy happening again.

I wanted to add my, and actually our, condolences to the families and the loved ones lost, including Carlos Israel Sanchez Villalba, Junior C. Nicosamo, and Ashley Whitehead.

and as a father of 11-year-old, I really want to especially do so to the three young children who lost their daddy.

Now to the approval agenda.

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

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid comment period.

Comments related to items two through seven, the Vehicle Resident Assistant Program, including Council Bill 121281, will be accepted at the conclusion of item one.

We'll be doing that primarily.

I do recognize there's at least one person who won't be able to stay for that, given public comment and that public hearing for the RV legislation.

So you can do that during the regular one.

But I do ask generally for everyone who wants to speak to RVs to do so at that point of the agenda, which is just after the Buy to Seattle review that we're doing.

At this time, public comments should relate to the items on the agenda within the purview of the committee.

And I will say, due to the timeline, particularly with the RV legislation, the mayor's budget presentation, and then our two o'clock with the budget and so forth, that today's public comment will be held to one hour.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have today?

Currently, we have nine in-person speakers signed up for the public comment period and three remote speakers for the public comment period.

Okay, each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with the in-person speakers.

Can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

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

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

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

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

The first speaker on the list is Amy Tipton.

Am I able to share these?

Yes.

Can you please speak into the mic?

Is this working?

Yes.

Good morning.

My name is Amy Tipton.

I live in Belltown.

In the two weeks after Labor Day, 324 of my neighbors completed a survey about conditions in Belltown.

Public drug activity was named as an obstacle by 78% of the residents.

personal safety theft or property damage by 70%.

225 residents named a specific block, unprompted, with no list to choose from.

Those answers concentrate on Bell and Blanchard between first and third.

This is not new.

The city's MCPP survey ranked Belltown the second of 43 micro-communities on social disorganization in 2025. We're asking for a more robust police budget for monitoring specifically between first and third on Bell and Blanchard.

We want drug dealers off our streets.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Angela Fall.

Good morning, Safety Committee.

Thank you for hearing our comments.

My name is Angela Fall, and I co-own and operate a commercial building in Belltown that has a diverse group of small businesses and working professionals.

Over the last five years, our building has been broken into nine times.

resulting in over $150,000 in theft and property damage.

Twice we had to take our own initiative and harm's way to personally track down our personal belongings that were stolen.

Every single break-in is a direct result of open air activity and addiction right outside our doors.

Small businesses cannot keep absorbing these losses.

We need immediate action from you to support a robust police presence and direct targeted enforcement to clear and monitor the corridor between first and third, from Bell to Blanchard, and arrest the drug dealers that are creating this chaos.

Thank you.

I just wanted to note as well that our Vice Chair is here in person and also Councilmember Rivera is joining us online.

Our next in-person speaker is Craig Thompson.

Good morning.

To start off, I attended a meeting in Mount Baker this past weekend, and the city of Seattle is getting together in a way that is beyond what the council is doing, beyond what the mayor's office is doing as well.

There are many groups coming together, and they are going to be acting in unison over the issues of public safety.

the Bight of Seattle incident.

The mayor announced the administration will hire a program manager to coordinate public safety issues and response.

I worked with the Nichols and McGinn administration and interagency task forces closely with senior public safety and legal advisors, with deputy mayors, so I know what works and how to achieve a program that addresses community concerns.

I've seen what happens when a political appointee runs a less successful program, shall we say.

We are still seeing the effects of that failure from 14 years ago, not only in what is called the jungle, but in many other neighborhoods.

Whoever is hired by the administration, that person must be a professional hire, not a political hire.

And I would like to say one other thing.

I worked in engineering and software engineering and program management.

I have worked directly for three lieutenant colonels.

I understand how program management works.

There are hundreds of people in the greater Seattle area who can do this job.

But it has to be done not according to to one person's interpretation of what Seattle values.

It has to be done in a professional way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Tom Graff.

Good morning.

I'm Tom Graff.

I chair of Belltown United.

I live and work in Belltown.

I've been in Belltown since 1988, so I feel like I've seen this neighborhood go from parking lots to the densest census track in the state, or one of the densest, and certainly one of the densest west of Chicago.

We deserve better from this city.

The shootings and deaths at the Bight of Seattle and over Labor Day weekend are unacceptable for this city.

I employ you, when you are looking at the budget for 2027, that you increase police funding so that they can continue to hire more police.

The response time for our city is unacceptable, and property crimes are ignored.

So you must take action on the budget for 2027 and not hold the police to the current level.

You must continue to increase our police force.

That is eminent or the most critical thing to stop what is happening.

in our city.

And certainly the section of first to third, Bell and Blanchard needs a police presence that we do not have now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Keith Kentop.

And if I mispronounce your last name, please correct me.

Yeah, my name is Keith Kentop, vice president of the Belltown Community Council.

That is correct.

Thank you.

We're talking about the numbers.

Can you please speak into the mic just so it can be captured on the TV?

Over here?

Yes.

OK.

As far as the numbers are concerned, 78% of the people surveyed said public drug activity.

This is in Amy's survey.

78% of people said public drug activity is their main concern.

riding around there.

But my, Bob, you know Belltown.

You've been with us.

You've been around.

What I would recommend is bringing everyone here, Everybody on these cameras here, bring your friends and family to Belltown, 3rd and Blanchard, Saturday night, about nine o'clock.

See what you think, see what you feel.

As far as the economic impact of people getting off of cruise ships on Bell Street, walking through this neighborhood with suitcases, with all the drugs and thuggery, I mean, it's bad PR.

for our city.

If you talk to the Office of Economic Development, they wouldn't like that either.

Office of Economic Development would say, fund the police, get more patrols, get bike cops, get the public involved, get the media involved.

It's just like Tom says, just like everybody says, it's unacceptable.

Bring your fans, bring your family down, bring your children down, 9 o'clock Saturday night.

See what you think.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Steve Rupstello.

I probably did not pronounce that, so please pronounce that correctly, so please correct me.

Good morning, Steve.

Your next big, big, big decision is going to be on police chief.

Now, I understand the mayor has a lot to do with that, but that's going to have an impact on you as well.

We're past the days of the consul going deep into departments.

I think Greg Nichols took care of that.

But this will determine a great deal about the city.

And I'm not used to what we have right now.

What they're describing in Belltown is all over.

And I would challenge you to go down to Belltown sometimes during the day as well.

And if you want it really fun, go down there, oh, around midnight, maybe 1 o'clock in the morning, if you really want to see it.

You won't get the people coming off the boats, but you will see situations which I don't think should be tolerated.

And that wise, we need more feet on the street.

We need a number of police.

I mean, we're below Mississippi.

and I remember that we had a president that used his slogan was, thank God for Mississippi winning as governor of Arkansas.

Well, we're doing worse than Mississippi and that's a hard task to do.

If we can do a lot better making this a little more civil society, then maybe, just maybe, we can improve the situation.

I saw yesterday some folks moved their office from downtown, and there was a good reason.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker will be Angela Castaneda.

Could I pronounce your name?

Hello, council members.

Thanks for having me.

My name is Angela Castaneda.

I'm the director of Beacon Business Alliance.

We are allied with other community-based organizations serving the small business Nodes, Beacon Hill, and along Rainer Ave corridor.

We live and work in the areas we serve.

Based on these relationships, I know I can speak for our team and the small businesses we serve that we support the process to create an effective safety plan.

Many of our business owners continue to take it, cleaning human waste from entryways in the morning, late night hours tracking and reporting multiple break-ins and vandalism, dealing with the stress of managing sometimes violent folks entering their businesses while customers are eating.

I ask for you to consider the ways our team and partners who are on the ground can support the process of safety planning beyond grabbing two minutes here today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker will be Agnes Goverm.

Please correct me if I pronounce that incorrectly.

That was right.

Hi, I'm Agnes Govern, and I'm with P4's Public Safety Committee.

I want to thank those of you who have engaged with us, actively engaged with us.

And I'm speaking today on agenda item D1.

As a group advocating and working on effective public safety system in the city, we urge the city council, the mayor, and the city attorney to work together with the public to advance meaningful public safety.

Yes, the public needs to know whether SPD protocols for a mass shooter attack were followed.

However, the media's focus on communication issues, aided by various council members' statements and positions, has placed disproportionate attention on certain elements and ignored others that must inform future actions.

The OAG, the Inspector General, has been charged with reviewing the incident, and the mayor has moved to improve communication citywide.

We are encouraged by the recent decision to move the important work by community gun violence interruption organizations into CARE.

We are encouraged that SPD leadership is beginning to build a collaborative relationship with CARE, and we hope that CARE is given the resources and authority needed to successfully deliver on its mission.

What we saw after the event was emphasis on blame regarding communication, a focus on who to blame for lack of timely notice to the public.

What was lost to us was elected officials coming together to collaborate on the best way to address the larger issue of gun violence and meaningful public safety.

We know that next year's budget has big challenges given the huge budget deficit.

This creates an immediate opportunity to demonstrate how you can work together with other elected officials to solve important issues that affect how people live in our society, in our city.

Instead of the formative statements and actions, let's get some meaningful work done.

Thank you.

Our last in-person speaker for public comment is Howard Gale.

One year ago, I stood here and pleaded with this council to take the actions, as suggested by the 36th District Democrats' unanimous resolution, actions that would actually save people from real threats faced from federal immigration officials, not from imagined threats and imagined solutions that this council and mayor have actually enacted.

There have been at least 542 ICE kidnappings just in the city of Seattle during the first 16 months of Trump's current term, more than twice what was previous.

Almost all involving sudden and violent traffic stops with window smashed, tires slashed, guns drawn.

Somebody will inevitably be killed in Seattle.

These are 100% known and preventable gun deaths.

UW researchers have found that these recent ICE kidnappings result from ICE querying actual Washington state database, license database, despite laws having been passed.

UW professor Angelina Godoy, who did this research said, for so much of our state to be going on as business as usual and not waking to this terror on our streets is really disturbing.

Some of the most recent terror just in Seattle in the last 10 weeks, July 7th, Maple Leaf, what two people abducted.

July 23rd, West Seattle, building contractor abducted.

July 27th, Seattle Center, man abducted.

July 28th, Alki Beach terrorizing people at a fruit stand.

August 5th, in Wedgwood, three people abducted.

August 8th, CID, and in Queen Anne, two people abducted.

September 17th, again in Delridge, person abducted.

September 19th, three people abducted in Genesee.

September 20th, one person in South Park at the Patriots Parade, one person in White Center.

And then just yesterday in Delridge again.

These are consistent, and I just wanna read what a resident of Wedgwood said recently.

It's happening in our neighborhood.

It seems insane in our community at this time.

The point with all of these is that the police were not there.

City officials were not there.

Nobody in the city was there to do anything.

Shame on you.

Thank you.

We will now move to remote public comment.

The first remote speaker is Michelle Whitehead.

Please press star six.

Hello, council members.

My name is Michelle Whitehead.

I am from Issaquah in King County.

I am Ashley Whitehead's cousin who was killed at the bite of Seattle on July 26, 2026. I am publicly speaking on the following items of concerns and action items I would like the city of Seattle to address.

Safety concerns, there is still a killer on the street.

We would like to see anonymous tip lines, highly promoted, publicly promoted on all social media platforms, on all websites for anyone in these communities who witness things can come forward without retaliation.

Another concern, lack of communication and transparency.

Communication to the families of the Bay to Seattle.

We want to know why you can't find the shooter.

We want to know why the city prosecutor, what he is doing to negotiate with the shooter to get him to talk, to provide information on where the shooter is still at large, the missing shooter.

We want to know why there's not a portal set up for family communication.

Concern, gang task force.

Why isn't there a gang task force?

Why isn't there a dedicated task force of Seattle Police Department people who could possibly report daily, weekly, monthly statistics on gang violence activity and specific locations of gang activity?

Where's the data?

Who's compiling data?

Where can the public find the data?

How is it that I can find a ton of information on Reddit about gangs and gang violence and quite literally found several gang member accounts and photos, but the Seattle Police Department cannot find the last shooter.

Our last concern is reward.

Why is there not a reward?

There should be rewards set up for all the victims of the By the Seattle, including the survivors.

We'd like to see the seat of Seattle turn the cameras back on and enact common sense safety measures in and around major city events, such as the Seattle Center.

We would like to enact the Gaining Balance Task Force.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is John Messina.

John, please press star six.

Hi, thank you.

My name is John Messina.

I lived in Belltown from 1992 to 2001. and I moved back here in 2021. I'm an avid walker and I not only know a lot of history of Belltown having lived a lot of it, but I've seen the whole neighborhood day after day through the 90s and then the last five years walking around.

In the 90s, I could walk anywhere in Belltown and feel safe.

Even five years ago, I didn't think twice about where I went.

Now, I find I avoid certain areas.

We've discussed the corridor between 1st and 3rd on Bell and Blanchard.

I just don't feel safe there, even during the day.

And even in other parts of the neighborhood, but especially there, you see things you just didn't see in the 90s.

see public drug use.

When you did see in the 90s, it was someone in an alley or in between a couple of buildings.

Now you walk around, you don't know where you're going to see someone with a pipe smoking when it was what.

We see open air drug markets.

Didn't see that in the 90s.

I see theft out in the open all the time.

People stealing bikes, trying to break into cars.

When you see Three people sitting on the sidewalk going through eight backpacks, tearing out the contents and throwing them onto the sidewalk.

Well, those people, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to know those people don't own those backpacks.

Getting kind of tired of seeing crimes committed just in the middle of the day.

And people just feel, I guess, entitled to do whatever they want whenever they want.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker for the public comment period is Shannon Bernier.

I'm checking.

I am not seeing Shannon.

With that.

Okay.

Okay, the public comment period has expired.

We will now proceed.

By the way, we will have a public hearing, a little different than usual.

The public comment period has expired.

Later, we will have our public hearing related to the RV legislation.

We will now proceed to our items of business.

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

For example, the Belltown Resident Survey, Summary of Public Safety Committee.

I appreciate this.

I appreciate everyone who came from the Belltown community.

I think it's important.

I also thank, of course, Mr. Thompson representing North Beacon Hill, of course, Fremont's covered, and the various neighborhoods.

And I also thank, especially, Ashley Whitehead's cousin, Michelle, for coming and highlighting a lot of different issues, a lot of different questions that we can get to today.

All right, we'll now move on.

Clerk, please read item agenda one into the record.

Bite of Seattle review of incident and response.

Okay, after we had our quick look in August, Chief, Acting Chief and Assistant Chief Davis, if you can come to the table.

We had a quick look in August, and I asked for after action reports and for Seattle Police Department to come on this, which is our last committee meeting ahead of budget.

But I also, and for the record, I wanted to note that we received an after action report from the Seattle Fire Department, which I've handed out to my colleagues, and also one from the Seattle Center.

Seattle Center has done an after action report with a consultant, which I was surprised, very well done.

I'd like to actually commend both FHIR and Seattle Center.

Seattle Center has 10 findings, 10 recommendations, and at a recent meeting, Mr. Engstrom, the acting Seattle Center director, noted that the important thing was implementation, which is probably the most important thing to come out of that committee meeting, because it's so important, the implementation of what we have.

and so I just wanted to highlight these two and by the way this could be the basis of looking at major venues, major events in 27. About this time last year I started building out our 26 plan for the committee and doing the same thing for 27. Major venues, major events to the questions that came up will be part of what we do in addition to gun violence intervention and interruption for the 27 plan for the committee.

Okay, so with that, will the table please introduce yourself for the record.

Interim Chief Andre Sayles.

Assistant Chief Tyrone Davis, head of the Special Operations Bureau.

Mayor Wilson's Director of Public Safety, Allison Holcomb.

Okay, I'll turn it over to you for the briefing.

We'll go through the briefing straight.

Like last time, I will speak first as chair and then pass to my vice chair and then on from there.

All right.

Chief, over to you.

Thank you once again for having us here.

I want to echo what you mentioned earlier, the condolences to the family members that lost loved ones and individuals that were injured on that day and the goers of the Bight of Seattle.

Our condolences from the Seattle Employees Department.

and PowerPoint up or not.

And pull the microphone close to you.

Yeah, you can pull it all the way up.

Expand this.

Always a danger having two chiefs running the PowerPoint.

Yeah, I wasn't prepared for this.

This wasn't a part of preparation here.

If you give me a moment, I can share.

If you give me a second, I can do it.

Is he here?

Maybe.

I don't know how to make this full screen, sorry.

Okay.

We'll go with what we got.

Yeah.

Maybe.

I got it.

You got it?

Okay.

Clerk has it, so we're good.

Thank you.

This will be an after-action report from the Bide of Seattle in 2026 mass shooting incident.

I just want to make sure we put that out there, that initially this was identified as an active shooter incident.

But looking at the protocols and being involved in an active shooter myself in my previous profession, I've identified this as a mass shooting incident instead of an active shooter.

Very quickly, we identified that there was no active shooting going on.

once our officers responded within 20 to 30 seconds and stopped the incident from occurring.

Second slide.

We had a fast response, like I just mentioned.

Our officers were able to run towards the sound of gunfire and responded within 20 to 30 seconds and took one individual into custody at that time.

We had a slow aftermath.

took us five hours.

There was a five-hour gap to get the appropriate information that I filled out to our community members and the region as a whole.

We'll talk about that today and go over what led to that.

The incident finished up at about 2 a.m.

By the Seattle incident.

First point here, A, the event.

It was happening between Friday and Sunday.

that was produced by Foodie Land.

The festival hours every day was 11 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

daily.

The footprint, the largest footprint in history of the event, activation across the entire city center campus.

Attendance, we had thousands of people attend each day.

We didn't get a complete head count, but there was tens of thousands of people that attended this event on a daily basis.

food and land contracted by the workshop, Climate Pledge Arena staff for non-police safety and security.

Our known risk window, our IAP situational assessment flagged late afternoon, early evening hours as historically the highest risk window for large-scale disturbances.

I'll turn it over now to Chief Davis.

Chief Davis All right, real quick, I'll touch on the staffing plan that we had set up for July 26. for the Byte of Seattle.

What you see on this slide here is a summary of our staffing.

Lieutenant Farwell was our incident commander, Sergeant Bailey was serving as our operations section chief, and they managed a total of six sergeants and 29 officers.

I do want to highlight that we had eight bike officers and a sergeant assigned to also be able to cover different areas of the grounds.

and adjust accordingly.

So you can see by the different locations that we strategically position people in proper places in order to address things as they occur, and I think we had very good coverage that day.

Next slide.

What you see here is an overview of something that we usually have as part of our planning process.

to address public safety.

The police department doesn't do it alone.

We rely on the support of the Seattle Police Department.

They had a medical tent and they were assigned to the facility.

We also have in our incident action plans information for assigned people for medics, ambulance services.

We usually give a heads up to all hospitals as well to make sure that they are aware we have a large scale event.

and the main thing we have is a dedicated dispatcher to monitor a reserve frequency to handle and manage that event.

And we had that, again, that channel is monitored by a dispatcher and recorded.

Next slide.

What we'll go through is a really short timeline, a brief timeline.

I'm sure there's gonna be questions that are gonna be posed.

We could probably get into some more detail, but starting at six o'clock, that was when we had reports, officers unviewed or heard shots that were being fired.

We had officers positioned within 100 feet of the people involved in the shooting, the two suspects, and we had it under control.

We had, in terms of the shooting, being stopped within 20 to 30 seconds.

So we had officers positioned there to address the threat and limit the amount of casualties.

Shortly thereafter, officers started to move in kind of go into a phase where we start to try to protect and save lives.

So we start working with doing medical treatment to the injured people, bringing in fire department eventually to kind of continue in that effort and get people to the hospital.

Shortly thereafter, we closed the campus.

so that's the whole entire Seattle grounds and started to evacuate people so we can kind of get better control of the surroundings there and kind of transition to our investigation.

There was a report, we had some reports that there may have been a suspect that entered the IMAX theater and so we did send some officers to that theater to start clearing it out and we eventually concocted a search which we spent several hours conducting, and we were not able to locate any suspects within that venue.

At 7 o'clock, Captain Ward, he arrived at the scene.

He debriefed Lieutenant Farwell and assumed command of the incident.

I arrived about 7.15, where I was also giving a detailed debrief from Captain Ward.

My interpretation of everything was, Things were being handled accordingly.

We had kind of transitioned from a dynamic scene where we were dealing with the shooting and then trying to help with a first aid and getting people to the hospitals.

And then we were kind of in our investigative mode, you know, outside of the activities that were occurring at the IMAX Theater.

And just one thing to note, we'll probably circle back to this.

After my arrival at 7.15, I say by 7.30, I was ready to brief the press, and I was delayed, and we'll probably circle back to that at some point as a part of this hearing.

Next slide.

Oh, we're there.

8.30.

We learned around 8 o'clock that Chief Barnes wanted a couple of different briefings, so we wanted an internal briefing at 8.30, followed by a 9 o'clock briefing to to share information with elected officials and during that time frame as well there was a 945 press conference that was scheduled as a part of that plan.

There were several delays that occurred with regard to the briefing but eventually just shy of 11 o'clock I was finally able to conduct the press conference and share information with the public.

At that point, after the press conference, things wind down.

We were able to slowly work towards completing the investigation.

The scene was demobilized at 1.22, and the campus was released to Seattle Center staff at 2 p.m.

Chief.

Next slide, please.

With the last two previous slides, I will identify that- make sure that those are approximate times.

Don't want to be tied into that.

Those are approximate times that we had on our timestamps.

Casualties and injuries.

We had three DOAs, two that were on scene at the grounds, and then one eventually succumbed to his injuries at Harborview.

Four injured, three at Harborview, and we have one walk-in at UW-Montlake.

for a total of seven gunshot wound victims that we located on scene, and one person that walked in over at Montlake.

Next slide.

Our incident command had a clean escalation.

Once again, I wanna point out the great work that this group did during this time.

Lieutenant Farwell, Captain Ward, and Assistant Chief Davis, who was acting as the Chief of Police at that time, were able to get on scene relatively quickly, They did a great job of leading our officers in the job that they did.

Our officers did a fantastic job as well.

During that time, also, we had a tactical command handoff.

It was clean from Lieutenant Farwell to Captain Ward, who was in an acting capacity, while Assistant Chief Davis ran a separate parallel track with elected officials that he was designated to do.

The officials that were on scene at the time at various points throughout that night was Captain George Davidson, who was Acting Patrol Chief, Mayor Katie Wilson, Deputy Mayor Brian Surratt, Councilmember District 7 Bob Kettle, Governor of Washington Bob Ferguson, and U.S.

Congresswoman Pramila Jalapal that showed up on the scene at that time.

Those are our dignitaries and officials that showed up on the scene.

Next slide.

So what went well?

Officers, they ran to the gunfire, as I mentioned earlier, and within 20 to 30 seconds, the gunfire was stopped.

We had one person in custody and we were able to kind of move towards treating people for their medical issues.

So again, that was a very seamless transition.

Incident command protocols were established immediately and structured consistent with our incident management plan.

There were investigators that were evacuated without any secondary injuries.

We were working out trying to search the IMAX and ensuring that there was no suspects hiding within that theater and that was done so methodically and systematically to make sure we didn't miss anybody that could be outstanding.

And then we heard Chief talk about the handoffs from Lieutenant Farwell to Ward back to Farwell to close out command of the event.

Next slide.

What I identified as some structural gaps behind the scene, mutual aid.

We had several mutual aid agencies from out the region that showed up to the scene unannounced.

We're working on protocols.

We actually have protocols in place now to where, when this happens, people need to be identified, go to our incident commander so we can know who's on scene.

who's here, who's been spoken with, and who's taken over some of the scene security and safety that we need to do on that time, i.e., the FBI showed up and no one had a contact with them.

So we have things in place, so therefore that doesn't happen when this happens again.

Incident commanders, I spoke about Lieutenant Farwell.

Captain Ward and Assistant Chief Davis being on scene.

When you think of a mass casualty incident, I believe that they were severely and adversely impacted due to personnel that were not on scene trying to give orders at that time.

When you look at situations like this, it's time to take a seat back and let the individuals that are on scene run the scene.

I can't see something that I'm not there doing, so I believe that they were adversely affected by taking direction from individuals that were not on scene, people that were getting information via text and phone calls.

We needed to lean into their expertise and being on scene, and I think that was a structural gap behind the scene that I identified during this process.

Next slide.

Communication and data gaps.

Internal briefing preceded public safety information.

First public briefing was 11 p.m.

What I mean by that is when you look at incidences of this nature, you have two things.

You have a public safety statement that we should be giving out.

And as Assistant Chief Davis said, he was prepped and ready to go in between 7.30 and 7.45, so that public safety statement should have been sent out.

And you also have a media briefing.

I believe that those two, the media briefing is where we have our dignitaries, we have our chiefs of police giving information to the media and taking questions.

I believe that those two were merged together, and the definition of the both were not appropriately talked about, so I believe that's where the communication gap occurred, because we were thinking a media briefing instead of a public safety statement to the public safety.

Police departments should own that.

We should be the ones giving that public safety statement.

We need to get that information out.

At that time, we will not be giving or taking questions, but I believe that those two are married together, and that's where some of the communication gaps happened.

When our senior elected officials arrived on scene, we had sworn staff completing timely public safety information, but the information wasn't given out.

That was an on-scene decision-making process that we need to give to our incident commanders and then bringing in our public information officers so they can have that liaison point between our elected officials sharing that information.

We did identify minor data inconsistency.

It was initially mentioned that there was potential of an eighth victim unseen.

That information was later, I'll just basically say, debunked.

and that information was cleared out.

It was also identified that we had 25 officers versus 29. This differs slightly against some of our internal accounts, and I will point out that this typically happens in a mass situation like this.

Some of the numbers gets mixed up because you have multiple people giving that information, but that's something that can be easily corrected once we all sit down and do a debrief as we did in this incident.

Next.

suggested personnel and equipment upgrades.

One of the biggest things I identified is separate the acting chief or the chief tactical role from the mayor's office liaison duties.

That's civility adversely affected.

Chief Davis trying to work both of these events.

So we're looking at ways and we're going to be putting out ways when we have situations like this.

We have a public information officer that's going to be taking over that liaison partnership with that instead of the person that's leading our troops and leading our people to do the right things.

That was number two.

Number three, expand the bike perimeter squad beyond eight officers for this footprint.

Everyone that's been on the grounds there knows it's a very large footprint.

So we need to look at ways to expand that out.

Then also a pre-authorized drone protocol for mass casualty incidents and active suspect scenarios.

Having a pre-authorization for a drone, we don't have those for Seattle Police Department, but working with our partners in regards to saying, if and when this happens, are you able to assist us in this matter?

These are the times that we're going to be operating and making sure that they are okay and it gives us a thumbs up to say, yes, if you need us, we will be there and arrive.

We didn't have that, and that's something that I would like to suggest moving forward as a police department.

Next slide.

Budget constraints and behind the gaps.

Several findings trace back to resource trade-offs, not planning oversight, field staffing.

Seven supervisors and roughly 25 to 29 officers covered an event where thousands of people attended.

Saturday staffing was reduced specifically to cover the citywide torchlight parade, showing a finite overtime pool spread across some simultaneously major events.

Always want to point out, every staffing and equipment recommendation in this report carries a reoccurring cost.

Each should go to the city council and the mayor's office with an explicit budget estimate attached to it.

Special events is a big strain on our police department.

We respond to and work hundreds of special events yearly, and that is a big strain on the police department that's already strained with personnel.

Hopefully in the near future we can start taking care of that, but we have to understand that a lot of these events that we attend to on a yearly basis has a big strain on our police department.

Next slide.

So again, lessons learned.

I'll touch on them briefly.

It's important to know that this information was gathered with the help of a lot of people and a lot of different forms, reports.

So, you know, I may provide a perspective that might be slightly different than what's been shared.

And so we'll kind of work through that.

But the positioning of officers that were close to the crowd was certainly why we were able to catch the shooter in 20 to 30 seconds.

So that's good.

We want to keep expanding our input.

to print.

It's great to see if we can get more bicycle officers on.

It just helps to make sure that we have a safer event moving forward.

And we also learned that stronger tactical response, like we saw in the 26, doesn't necessarily equate to having a fast public response.

Again, I don't believe that was fully an issue in the sense that, you know, we were prepared to speak to the media around 730 to 745 before the delays began, but that is something that we obviously are working out as a part of this process.

The IEP, we rely on intel to staff events, and so it's worth noting that the staffing, the plan, where we had officers position and the time of day kind of came to fruition and was aid in helping us end the event successfully in terms of the response.

Obviously we didn't want this to happen, but the response was quick and that was a large part due to the planning.

We need coordination between senior elected officials and making sure that we have clear comms between leadership there at the scene so we can separate and manage those events accordingly.

And so I think we need to continue the work on seeing what that looks like moving forward when we have a response to our large events about, you know, what role our electeds play in communicating public safety to our community.

And post-incident reporting needs one casualty count reconciliation.

I was talking again about the amount of missed reports.

I know one of the things I did talk with Fireperson about after this event is kind of really making sure that You know, maybe we shift some of the casualty reporting to the fire department.

They usually have the best information because they are the ones that are kind of documenting treating patients as they're being transported to local hospitals.

Next slide.

So we need to designate an on-scene PIO with independent alert authority.

So part of this comp plan, it sounds like we're kind of working on and finalizing, you know, that is something that we'll make sure we have moving forward to prevent any delayed reporting in the future.

The pre-authorized drone support, we heard Chief Sales mention, you know, kind of being more intentional with our protocols in response to mass casualty situations where the drone would be utilized by our mutual aid partners.

and, again, separating the chief's command role from the mayor's office, liaison duties, I think will be very important moving forward when we talk about communication with the community.

Next slide.

So, in conclusion here, the instincts in our IAP plan were right.

We spoke about there could be some incidences of physical fights, but we didn't put in there thinking about a possible shooting.

so the instincts were right that we were going to have some type of issue in regards to groups slash gangs having some conflict with each other.

Officers were positioned close to the crowd.

They stopped the threat in seconds.

Now we just got to get the rest of the resources correct, and that's going to be our communication, the gaps identified with our aerial support policy, the public information timing, sit downstream of that response, addressing the personnel, equipment, and budget items, and this report will help the rest of the organization move with the same speed and discipline our officers on the ground already showed on July 26. I always want to talk about the training that we put forth, and it's still in our officers showed up that day.

It shows up every day.

but now we need to fine-tune the other things that were shown on that day, the communication.

We're working on that.

I've been working with Mayor Wilson on briefing prior to events, giving them a brief of what's going on before it's going to happen.

This is our plan.

These are the resources that we have coming together as a command staff, everyone understanding what's going on, even to the point to where I've implemented last week a protocol for every executive and senior command member.

There will be no more than three of us off at a time.

We have a shared calendar that we will have more than 50% of the senior command staff working in the area, and no more than three of us can be off at a time.

That went into effect last week after we fine-tuned some things, so we're working towards that.

Thank you, Chief.

I appreciate the presentation.

Also, thank you, Assistant Chief, for being here as well, Davis, and for Director Holken to be here as well.

My focus is going to be on operational planning and leadership operations, but I want to hit three questions for Assistant Chief Davis.

First, you note public safety statement versus media briefing.

Did you explain the difference as part of this engagement and then say, hey, we need to press ahead with the public safety statement?

I did not, not in the terms that you mentioned.

I think it's kind of important to note and kind of set some context to what actually happened.

You know, again, I'll start with our process for how we notify the media.

That's worked.

It worked on January 30th when I responded to the scene and did the press conference for the two young men who lost their lives to Rainier Beach.

This is something we've used for a long time.

We generally...

The scene is under control.

Detectives arrive on the scene.

We coordinate with the detective follow-up units and kind of confirm with them what information we're going to share publicly so we don't jeopardize the investigation.

After that review, we decide who's going to speak to the press.

If it's a large-scale incident like this incident, where we had eight casualties or seven casualties rather, including three that passed, they should hear from the chief or somebody in uniform.

I was there to provide that information at the time we were ready to go.

And generally what happens is I'll do what I kind of used or termed as a presser and go and talk to the community and let them know what happened, let them know that there's nothing safe.

I will tell you this right now, what I shared in that 20-minute press conference at 11 o'clock would have been the same exact information I would have provided at 730. Nothing changed.

That's how stable the situation was.

That's how well run our officers were.

That's how well prepared Detective Pritchard and our media folks were.

So we would then, after that press conference, we would send out a written statement through X and then there would be references or links to the Seattle police blotter letting the public know that there will be additional updates provided on the blotter.

So that's been our process.

What happened, you know, that day was tough.

We were ready to go.

I was ready to walk down there and handle it.

I did talk to the deputy mayor, just kind of let them know as a courtesy, we're going to go down and conduct the interview.

And then I was told we needed to wait for the mayor.

which at the time I thought, okay, let me work with them on this.

So I suggested a couple of alternatives.

The first was that we go ahead and do the presser now and then Chief Barnes will be back at eight in the morning and we will conduct the press conference as we now classify and as we'd have everybody there in the morning.

And I was still told that, I was still asked to wait.

and then offered a second alternative, which is that we do the presser now and then maybe do another one when the mayor gets here and any other officials get here before the 10 o'clock news.

And I was also asked to wait.

So I think that answers your question.

It does.

I could tell you, like, I thought that, well, if we're waiting on the mayor, I knew she was in the city, I knew her detail was attached to her, and I anticipated it's Sunday evening, she'll probably be down here in 20 minutes and we'll do it then.

But what was lacking from this conversation over the course of the last two months was context.

There wasn't a situation where I was told, yeah, we're going to do this press conference in three hours, four hours.

That's not happening.

I probably would have had a different conversation with the deputy mayor, but that's not what happened.

So I was asked to wait, and then at some point I had to defer to Chief Barnes because he started directing people to do things, which should have gone through me as the acting chief.

Piggybacking off that and to Chief Sales Point is, what's the impact of doing back-to-back teams meeting that essentially took the better part of an hour?

So you were taking out of your position, your tactical position, what was the impact of that?

And for the record, for the public, I was there for the second half of that, in person with you.

Right, well, you were there.

And I think one of the things we need to point out to the public, there was really no tactical situation going on at 7.30.

Again, our patients were gone.

The crime scene was secure in terms of our ability to collect evidence.

Again, we had the activity that was going on over at the IMAX theater.

that was handled separately.

We were in control of the situation.

So I don't think there was any real takeaway.

But I think in terms of the delay, it created more confusion because, you know, Chief Barnes was directing people to do things and not going through me, who was at the scene.

And it's kind of hard to manage the things that still needed to happen, like the press conference, when you're 2,000 miles away.

And I think that's not a kind of something that's consistent.

One of the things I appreciate about Chief Sales, and we talked about this, and we'll do this moving forward, is when the acting chief is there, it's his show.

I'm the chief.

And we've had a couple instances where I serve as the acting chief, and that didn't happen, and it was addressed before.

So here it was happening again.

And so I'm kind of conflated a little bit about myself.

I spent 30 years as a police officer.

in a paramilitary organization between two different agencies.

I've been in Seattle for 26. I spent four years in the United States Navy.

I will tell you that I can tell even when somebody's asking me to wait to do a press conference or when the chief is directing people to do things, when I'm in charge, when I'm not in charge, when I'm being asked and I'm really not being asked.

I think when you take the context of that, the 8.30 and 9 o'clock meetings were not helpful.

We spent a lot of time talking about the active shooter incident management checklist.

I know you brought that up, Councilmember Saka.

This wasn't an active shooter incident.

I knew that at the time.

That was a waste of time.

We didn't need to follow that protocol.

I just needed to be left alone so myself and Captain Ward can manage the scene.

We had it handled, so it didn't help.

On that last point, too, I wanted to note, before going into some of the operational planning pieces, at 9 o'clock on the slide it says, you know, former Chief Barnes briefs elected officials via teams.

To your point, and going back to your Navy experience, you are an executive department.

You are the police department.

The mayor is the chief executive.

that briefing should be for the mayor, nobody else.

It wasn't for me.

I was there observing, which is, you know, part of my role too in terms of my responsibilities, but that was for the mayor.

And so I think that is telling to me is that former Chief Barnes briefs elected officials.

No, my understanding is that briefing was for the mayor because she had gotten no direct briefing from anybody in police uniform up to that point, correct?

Correct.

So there wasn't a briefing for me or a council president.

It wasn't for Governor Ferguson or Executive Sahalai, Governor Ferguson, or Congresswoman Jayapal.

Yeah, and it didn't help us at the scene.

I mean, it just, like I said, it delayed the press conference longer.

and then it's great now that...

So from an operational point of view, it should be a briefing for the mayor and, and by the way, this is a briefing for the mayor, and if you told me this is a briefing for the mayor, sir, you're gonna have to step aside, I'd be like, okay.

I'd like to get debriefed after the fact, but okay.

I think that's an important piece that doesn't really jump out, but it does to me.

On the operational planning, it is my understanding that the bite of Seattle within SPD circles is known as the fight of Seattle and you kind of hinted at that with the IEP in terms of expectation of fights.

Were the 29 officers assigned the same number as last year or five years ago or even ten years ago?

Has that been a static number or is that number assigned to the bite of Seattle in flexing?

I do not have the data of the prior events.

I know as part of our planning process we do look at past incident action plans, we look at the after action reports, and we use intel that's current to determine how we should staff events.

That is the way we should do it moving, that's the way we should have done it, that's the way we did it, and that's the way we're going to do it moving forward, if I have anything to say about it.

On the staffing, can you speak to the type of officers?

Were these all patrol officers?

Do you have anybody from a gang unit, gun violence reduction unit?

I know units were basically emptied out over the last five years.

Or the CRG, the community response group.

Were any of those officers part of the mix of the 29?

not in that specific role, but we did, out of those 29 officers, we did have several officers that were part of those specialty units working in that off-duty or overtime capacity.

And so when incidents like this happen, because we have such a vast array of officers with different skill sets and experiences, we were able to quickly transition into dealing with these events as they occur.

But to answer your question, no.

There was no specific units assigned to it, but we did have we did have many of those units that were working in some sort of on-call capacity, and that led to their quick and fast response.

On-call, were those officers basically forward placed into the Bight of Seattle or held in reserve?

And I ask that because if they're in there, if they have that background, they can identify individuals who may be, to be frank, a problem and say, hey, I'm watching you, please, or it's time for you to move along.

to engage those individuals?

If they have that gang, gun violence unit, the CRG, because they've kind of taken on that role with all the staffing challenges, were they pushed into the BITE of Seattle to kind of be proactive engagement, or were they held in reserve?

Yeah, I would say, Councilmember Kettle, like, we need to investigate that further, give you a more comprehensive answer, and maybe that's something that could come out in the OIG's investigation, you know, because we did have a bunch of bike officers.

A lot of our bike officers are CRG officers.

So again, we had that expertise probably there in a different capacity, but maybe not in the capacity of your lineup, but I don't know the answer for sure.

Chief.

We did have some people from GVRU.

They weren't in the official capacity as a GVRU, but they were working along with our officers.

I will also notify or identify that we did have a contingent of our SWAT team in the area as a quick response unit.

So therefore, if something were to happen, they were there and they were there fairly quickly to do the search of the IMAX.

So we did have fractions and portions of GVRU and our SWAT team in the immediate area as a quick response team.

You know, given FIFA World Cup, the Torchlight Parade and other events, was there a fatigue element, particularly given FIFA a month and a half of being up, definitely under man compared to other World Cup cities.

Was that just in terms of op tempo, was that a factor in terms of anything of that day?

I think I'd be remiss to say if I didn't say that there is a fatigue factor in there.

Once again, our officers are They work a lot of festivities and events here.

Not saying that in that moment that they were tired or fatigued and what they needed to respond to, but if they're consistently being called upon to work six, seven days a week with minimum time off throughout the summer, there would be a portion of fatigue, but I don't think that had anything to do with the staffing numbers.

I'm a person that always looks and says, what is enough?

If we had 100 officers, would that have prevented it?

I'm not sure.

I think sometimes in incidents like this, we can't prevent the shootings.

But we do our darndest to make sure that we're there to prevent it.

But we don't know what individuals are thinking.

But the officers, they do get tired.

It's a strain on our resources.

Okay.

I do have some leadership operations.

I'm going to ask one last question before going to Vice Chair.

There's a lot of mid-year budget decisions being made.

For example, the one that I've been following is the fact like the nine positions for the real-time crime center hasn't been filled.

But I also know that overtime spending restrictions, there's some pieces to that are having an impact generally.

Was there any impact on how the CRG or other units or the entire effort in terms of like overtime rules in terms of what we're trying to do, and again, from essentially a budget perspective, is there any impact of restrictions on the amount of overtime that can be taken?

And this goes into the plan, like in terms of resources and people, that flex of using overtime, was that a factor at all?

I can't answer that because I don't know.

I didn't look at that, but you'll see me write it on a piece of paper that I can look at.

I will say that there are some times where we do restrict overtime, and I don't think it's necessarily to the events.

I think it's more or less of if we have a SWAT operation in the middle of the night, can we do it at a different time where we have more personnel on and things of that nature?

But it's something I did write down on my notes, and I can get back to you on that.

Okay, great.

I do have some leadership operations questions, but vice chair?

Yeah.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chief Sales, Assistant Chief Davis, and Public Safety Director Holcomb for being here today presenting us this overview.

I want to thank the department, especially for the after-action report, and also for taking initial steps to mitigate, remediate, and address some of the challenges surface.

and also want to thank again the brave men and women of SPD, our care team and fire department collectively, individually and collectively of which no doubt saved and prevented further harm and further tragedies from the frontline officers responding to 911 call takers and the fire department personnel all coordinated and aligned and responding.

as intended.

And I'm saying that and I'm emphasizing that because we happen to have the three chiefs in this council chamber right now, so I want to extend my special gratitude to all the workers who did their job, all of our great public safety teams who did their job correctly that day.

Thank you, Chair, for First off, I saw some insightful reporting last night from Jeremy Harris and Como about from one of the families of the victims who ultimately testified today, Michelle Whitehead, who indicated that Some of the public discourse, including at this dais, we've lost one unfortunate consequence or set of consequences that have been lost in this conversation is the victims and the victim perspective, which is why, Chair, I wanna thank you for specifically calling out and honoring and taking a moment of silence to honor the victims.

Also, let's be clear that there were multiple other victims that were non-fatalities that were wounded.

A 2-year-old boy was wounded.

A 23-year-old woman was wounded.

A 27-year-old, or excuse me, a 23-year-old man was wounded.

A 27-year-old man was wounded.

A 39-year-old woman was wounded, and a 40-year-old woman was wounded.

On top of the people who were no doubt suffered tremendous trauma, and pain and anguish that will live with them forever for having to just merely witness what went down at Seattle Center when they should be coming to congregate, gather, celebrate, enjoy great eats and all the things, and not get in the middle of a gang turf war.

So thank you, Chair, again for centering the victims.

I had a list of prepared, two to three prepared questions for SPD.

I'm actually gonna call an audible and send those to you in writing offline and ask some questions and hopefully try my best to channel the victim's perspective here.

and asks the questions raised and the demands raised directly by Miss Michelle Whitehead.

Good news is it's an open book test.

If you are paying attention attentively during public comment, you'll have initial set of comments and responses to their questions in this case.

One of the things Michelle asked for Again, Michelle is the cousin of Ashley Whitehead, one of the victims who tragically lost her life.

One of the things Michelle asked for is, why is there no anonymous tip line set up and established to help bring those responsible and who might be involved with these tragedies accountable and bring them to justice.

Why is there an anonymous tip line that is set up, blasted, amplified on the department's social media channels, all amplified on my little office?

profile doesn't have the numbers of views and clicks and engagement as SPD, but why is there no anonymous tip line set up?

Or is there?

And if there is, can you commit to amplifying it, making it publicly available, doing a press release?

We have all of our media partners in the room today, making sure that that information is readily and easily available.

We do have a tip line set up.

There was this tip line set out on our blotter.

It was sent out.

I will say this.

I agree with you.

We need to amplify it more, and we will do that.

That is one of the things we talked about as an agency, being overly communicative about what's going on, putting that information out there.

have that TIP number, and we will get that back out again today.

I'll get with our media team, and we'll start putting that information back out there, making sure that it's amplified and people understand where they can go to give that anonymous information to the police department.

Thank you for that.

Next question is...

and again, Michelle had asked for this as part of her broader set of requests.

Sounds like there's no communications portal specifically set up for the victim.

So my question is, what kind of victim, and this is also in part for, and probably best to start from the mayor's office, but what kind of victim advocacy and outreach has been provided to the victims in this case?

And question one, would you, sub-question is, would you agree that a communications portal or channel is, is needed to further strengthen victim advocacy and outreach.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka, for the question.

We do have victim advocate outreach work that happens through our Human Services Department, but I agree with you that every opportunity that we can take to amplify the availability of services for people who have suffered significant trauma like this should be examined and fortified if possible.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Thank you.

Go ahead, SPD.

I will mention this also.

That is something that doing this exercise.

I did identify myself, and a couple weeks ago, we had a Seattle resident unfortunately take his own life, and I was on the phone within 10 to 15 minutes with Chief Barton from the care unit to see if they can have their community crisis responders go out to our community members and make contact with them.

Once I got information back from the on-scene lieutenant that no community members witnessed that unfortunate event, Chief Barton and I spoke and there was no reason for us to send that out.

So that is something that I've identified and being overly communicative again with our partners here in Seattle.

Thank you for that, and Director Holcomb, I'll say thank you for agreeing, but for clarity, you're not agreeing with me.

I'm just doing my best to channel the victim's perspective, so you're really agreeing with Michelle in this case, and I would appreciate your partnership in bolstering and strengthening our victim advocacy and outreach efforts just across the board and in this tragic case in particular.

Next question pertains to gang task force, and we talked a little bit about this earlier.

And also just wanna make clear that this work, look, we need to talk about the operational details, the leadership challenges, the technical communication implications, and get to the bottom of what happened.

We're not...

Make no apologies for that.

And this is a good form to do that, but we also need to, and that's why I really appreciated hearing that perspective directly, you know, remember the victims here.

So, you know, again, in light of that, is there a current gang task force or gun violence prevention task force that the department has?

What kind of...

What kind of engagement would that, if so, what kind of engagement would that task force have during or after incidents like this?

It would help us greatly.

One thing that I did do, I believe is the day after the event, was started working on a pilot program to infuse our community response group, CRG, and our gun violent reduction unit to be very proactive.

There's too many people that are out here that's creating too much havoc in this city and in this country.

I believe I'm a very proactive police chief and a police officer when I was a police officer.

I want our police department to be very proactive on the individuals that we know that are doing the violence, disproportionate amount of violence here.

It's a pilot program.

We're seeing how that works for us.

If it's successful, we'll move forward with that.

But at the same time, they'll work in collaboratively with our Seattle Police Guild to make sure we can get that going.

But understanding that I have to also balance the patrol officers that are on the streets.

I can't just rob Peter to pay Paul.

I have to make sure that we're doing the right things.

And just so I'm understanding, thank you Chief, just so I'm understanding correctly, there is no current specialty unit devoted to gang violence and gun violence prevention, whatever you wanna, the name of the specialty unit is really a form over substance distinction, call it whatever the heck you want, but a specialty unit focused on anti-gang violence, anti-gun violence, whatever it is, right?

So am I hearing you correctly, there's no current such unit in place today within the department?

We had that.

It was the GAIN unit.

Now they've been renamed to the Gun Violence Reduction Unit, and we're working on bringing that back.

And was that loss because of the staffing challenges over the years?

I can't answer that.

I believe that was previous to me coming here in June of 2025, so I have to do some research on that.

which highlights the importance of continuing to recruit and hire and build back our officer staffing.

If we were only able to launch pilot efforts intended to revive specialty units that were in place and effective to various degrees before, and I think that reveals an opportunity to continue down the path of bolstering our officer hiring and staffing efforts.

Thank you for indulging me, Chair.

I want to move on to 11 o'clock.

I understand.

Thank you for indulging me.

I'll transform this next question question into a comment.

I agree there should be some sort of rewards set up, and I would encourage you to share with our media partners the plan to do that.

The final thing she asked for was, turn on the damn cameras.

Turn on the cameras and enact measures to provide cameras, deploy cameras in locations where we know a lot of people gather.

The polling data is strong on cameras, especially in big events.

Especially when you layer in the fact that we built in best-in-class, best-in-nation, robust privacy safeguards designed to prevent disclosure of our information to the feds.

Is it risk-free?

Is it 100% risk-free?

No.

Is it best in the class, best in the nation?

Yes.

Should we have it and do the, like, weighing all perspectives, do the benefits of having cameras in place at big events?

Yes.

We need to do a better job of listening to the victims.

What Michelle just asked for, like, holistically, was a set of common sense measures.

Common sense.

In the City of Seattle, we need to stop trying to outsmart common sense.

Simple stuff.

We need to deliver.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

On that last point, I view that as part of the review.

I love the fact Seattle Center had their after action report.

It goes to the idea of looking at major venues, major events, and cameras as part of any other type of effort needs to be part of that.

Just one last thing, and again, we're gonna move to Councilmember Strauss' piece, and it goes to leadership operations.

You asked a lot of them.

Since we have Director Holcomb, I just wanted to ask, like that point I made, like that was a briefing for the mayor, and that was her first, you know, interaction.

I was just curious, did the mayor look to stand up to EOC, the Emergency Ops Center?

Was that a consideration on the part of the mayor in terms of bringing like leadership together, bringing the top people together?

That's a good question, Chair, thank you.

To my knowledge, we did not have a conversation about activating the EOC specifically.

I know that there were some conversations about whether or not Alert Seattle should be activated.

I think what we've been really clear about and what we've appreciated working with Seattle Police Department on is a recognition that communications did not go well that night, and we have worked closely with the department to improve our protocols, to clarify, streamline communications, and we look forward to continuing to cooperate with the investigation being conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.

Yes, although EOC is an ops piece.

Chief Scoggins had a command element huddle at 8 o'clock.

Chief Barnes had one at 8.30.

Did the mayor have a huddle, equivalent huddle, a sit room kind of situation with yourself, general counsel, chief of staff?

If you didn't stand up the OC, maybe director mayor from emergency management.

or, and everybody knows this, Chief Scoggins is, you know, in terms of leadership and experience is great, having maybe Chief Scoggins join the mayor at the city hall or some location to, you know, to huddle in terms of what needs to be done from an operational point of view, leadership operations.

I was wondering if there was any kind of command element huddle similar to fire and police.

The way that the mayor's office had responded to incidents, obviously not of this scale before, is we had relied on the commanding officer in an incident to contact me.

I then operate a text chain within the mayor's office and take our direction from the Seattle Police Department regarding next steps or in fire incidents.

For example, Chief Scoggins or one of his command staff is frequently in contact with me.

So that has operated smoothly up until the bite of Seattle evening, and we're now working on new protocols to ensure better operations going forward.

Okay, I think that's important.

All right, thank you very much, and thank you Chief Sales and Assistant Chief Davis.

Oh, I didn't see the hands up.

Councilmember Rivera,

Thank you, Chair.

I believe Councilmember Lynn had his hand up before my- No, he withdrew that.

He withdrew that.

I didn't think there was any hands up, so I was moving on to close this out.

Thank you, Chair.

I just, for the record, want to state one big issue that I feel hasn't had enough conversation you just brought up, but my very first thought when this all happened was why was the EOC not activated including the JIC which is the Joint Information Center those things usually get activated simultaneously and of course the JIC Information Center gets activated as a public facing communications tool all the city departments are involved to make sure that we're getting information to the public in real time so we may not have time to address all that but I wanted to note it for the record and I also want to point to a document coming out of our Emergency Management Office.

It's the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, which was updated in May of 2015, which basically lays out how to go about activating the Emergency Operations Center, which is very much a mayoral function.

Departments can request that the mayor activate the EOC, but the mayor is squarely responsible for activating the EOC when it does get activated.

I would love to hear more information about why the EOC and the JIC were not activated because I do believe, and we have already protocols in place for this, I do believe that that would have had an impact on how quickly information got out if it had been activated.

So just for the record, wanted to state my concerns about this and would love some information from the mayor's office about that, if not today, at a later time.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you so much.

Again, we'll follow up on that as well.

Thank you, Chief Sales, Assistant Chief Davis, and Director Holcomb for joining us.

And for all those that were in the audience and include from other departments, thank you from the Fire Department, IC SPOG, IC CPC, I see a lot of groups represented here today, so thank you everyone for joining us.

Okay, with that, we're gonna move to agenda item number two.

So we have, this is a little different, and I will be, I'm still chair, but I will be relying on Council Member Strauss, Assistant Vice Chair in this case.

Before we begin voting on items two through seven, I would like to take a moment to explain how we'll be proceeding.

These six items of legislation include five bills and one resolution related to Vehicle Resident Assistance Program, VRAP.

We will first begin with a public hearing listed on agenda item four to allow members of the public an opportunity to provide comments on the legislation.

Items two and three do not have proposed amendments, and I will request that they be moved together as one package.

The agenda lists a number of proposed amendments to items five through seven.

We have assembled a consent package of amendments for those items where possible.

Central staff will provide a high-level overview of each bill and consent package of amendments.

I will ask members if they would like to remove an item from the consent package of amendments.

As a reminder, this request does not require a second or a reason why the request is being made.

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

Before voting on consent package, members will have the opportunity to specifically highlight and speak to items within the group.

Are there any questions about the process?

This has been designed to kind of have these things move forward quickly.

Okay, in order to hold the public hearing as first item in this group, I will need to request that we consider it out of order.

If there's no objection, item four will be considered as the next item of business.

Any concerns, objections?

Hearing no objection, item four will now be considered.

Will the clerk please read item four into the record?

An ordinance related to land use and zoning, adjusting the definition of a recreational vehicle, adjusting the definition of outdoor storage to include outdoor storage areas for certain unoccupied vehicles, including recreational vehicles, adjusting the definition of flexible use parking to exclude storage of recreational vehicles, and amending sections 23.84A.032, 2384A.036, and 23.84A.038 of the Seattle Municipal Code for public hearing, briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Public hearing has been scheduled for this item and we will begin with opening the hearing.

Given the Mayor's speech at the library and also our follow-up council meeting, we will have one minute each for the speakers of this public hearing.

Clerk, can you also read off like three names at a time to assist in the movement?

Thank you.

Yes, Chair.

As presiding offer, I'm now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121281, including the Vehicle Resident Assistance Program, the VRAP.

Cleric County speakers are signed up for the public hearing.

Chair, we currently have 19 in-person speakers and 14 remote speakers.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Speakers will be called in the order they registered.

The public hearing registration will remain until the conclusion of this public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10 second chime will be your notice it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers microphones will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment relating to Council Bill 121-281 and the Vehicle Resident Assistance Program, VRAP, is only being accepted at this time.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by stating their name.

Our first three speakers will be Erika Clausen, Marta Kadane, which I probably mispronounced and I apologize, and Beatrix Kelly.

Erika.

and I am a former member of Seattle's vehicular homeless community.

And I want to talk about how I got out of that, why other people aren't getting out of that, and the realities of living that way.

Currently, I am housed because a brand new low-income building finished construction a few years ago.

And in that brief moment, I was lucky enough to find space in it.

But a lot of people are not going to be that lucky.

Seattle does not have enough housing.

We're going to be building shelters and homes for a long time.

And there's going to be people freezing in tents and bedrolls on the street until that happens.

And they don't have to live that way.

A vehicle has a roof.

It has better insulation.

It's limiting the amount of people who can live in vehicles is removing dignity from a lot of people.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marta, followed by Beatrix Kelly and Mackenzie Royal.

If I pronounced your name incorrectly, again, please correct me.

Thank you.

My name is Marta Kidane and I am the Community Engagement Manager at the Low Income Housing Institute.

Thank you, Council Members, for the hearing from community members today.

And we appreciate the work and efforts of Council Member Strauss to find a pathway for the underserved and underrepresented unhoused community living in RVs.

I just want to request today that the permitting legislation before you, especially Council Bill 121283 be held until the RV permitting process has been clarified and the subject matter expert provider table has been convened.

Furthermore, Seattle needs a second RV safe lot so that there is a place for outreach providers to refer people to where wraparound services are available.

I'd also like to call to your attention Council Member Foster's recommendations that they be adopted into final legislation.

And lastly, we'd like to

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Beatrix followed by Mackenzie Royal and Tammy Adams.

Thank you, committee members, for being here today.

My name is Beatrix Kelley, and I am the Housing Advocacy and Community Engagement Coordinator at Lehigh.

One of Lehigh's mottos is, housing is a human right, and today I want to emphasize the human aspect of that.

Much of the legislation seems to be focused on getting RVs off the streets, but isn't considering the people who are living in the vehicles.

By working to take RVs off the street, you are subsequently pushing humans out of their living spaces and into those streets.

This legislation is complex and risky, and while it works to provide services that are working with communities, it's not realistically highlighting the needs of the people living in RVs.

RV residents are struggling experiencing homelessness and struggling to find support.

Safe lots provide stable housing and resources to programs, participants, but those services are limited right now to 72 parking spots.

I strongly encourage you reconsider this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Mackenzie followed by Tammy Adams and then Sean Pullen.

Hello, thank you everyone for being here.

My name is Mackenzie Royal and I am the Tiny House Village Essential Needs Coordinator at the Low Income Housing Institute.

While working at Lehigh, I have seen the importance of housing at a new level.

When someone does not have housing, they are vulnerable and do not trust our systems.

When someone is living in an RV, that is their safe space.

It is not easy for them to give up their only place to call home.

The current legislation needs to be delayed in order to make necessary changes.

We support Councilmember Foster's recommendations and hope the Council will allot time to rework.

We request that they allocate funds to build a second RV safe lot as one is not enough.

Putting part of the $5 million towards building a second RV safe lot will allow us to work with one of the most vulnerable communities.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Tammy, followed by Sean Pullen and Tan McCarrick, which I definitely mispronounced.

Hi, my name is Tammy Adams.

I work for Low Income Housing Institute as a supportive services manager.

I managed our RV lot that we had in the past, and I found that to be incredibly successful.

I was formerly unhoused and lived in a car.

Having a safe place to rest my head at night as a female living on the streets, that was very unsafe.

So I'm asking that you please consider funding more RV sites.

We don't have enough shelter beds.

If we move them out of our RVs and say, move them into shelters, there's not enough beds.

So I'm asking you, please consider spending more money on RV sites.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Sean, followed by Tan and then Margaret Shield.

Hello.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Sean Poland and I work with Low Income Housing Institute as a program manager.

I'm here to ask you to allocate more money to add more RV safe lots.

I believe it is a good model and will provide a safe place for people to get help.

I've seen it work for both the people in need of services and for the city.

The RVs get demolished and are no longer on the streets creating a public hazard.

Please build more of these RV safe lots because it works.

67 RVs were decommissioned at our last site and we had a 60% success rate getting people into housing.

Our next in-person speaker is Tan, followed by Margaret Shield, and then Hallie Willis.

And please correct me on the pronunciation of your last name.

Tan Makarag.

Thank you all for being here.

My name is Tan Makareg, and I am a resident of District 3. RVs are a challenge for the city and especially for the districts overburdened by their presence, and I believe in getting them off the streets.

I also don't want us to forget that these RVs also have humans in them, humans that have complex needs and conditions that a sweeping RV legislation could leave behind.

There are many times in the city that the solution is more displacement, and our neighbors living in vehicles deserve better.

They deserve to be seen as whole and be given holistic support to leave their RV behind and move into permanent supportive housing.

We encourage using the allocated budget to add new RV safe lots.

RV safe lots are proven to remove RVs off the street, destroy them to prevent recirculation, and also support the person's progress to healthier and safer living conditions.

Salmon Bay RV Safe Lot and Tiny House Village had so much success in the year and a half that it operated, and we know that the upcoming Glassyard Commons RV Safe Lot will continue that legacy of success, but we need more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Margaret, followed by Hallie Willis, and then Aidan Carroll.

Good morning, I'm Margaret Shield, longtime resident in Lake City, speaking about the RV legislation.

So I strongly support the goal of building pathways for people living in RVs to move into safe lots and shelters, then to permanent housing while providing services.

And accomplishing that will be a public safety win across the city.

But safe lots take time, and we don't even have a census of RV dwellers yet.

It helps no one to impound vehicles and throw those people out of their RVs onto the streets before shelter is available.

And I believe that is what will happen if you pass this whole package today.

Please say no to 12183 that would create special permits, parking bans, and an impoundment system.

It's too complicated, too rigid, too costly, and too likely to be a bureaucracy that punishes people without homes.

Please say yes to funding outreach, creating multiple RV safe lots with sufficient capacity and services, offering RV storage options, and supporting housing pathways.

I believe that is what will make a real visible difference in our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hallie Willis, followed by Aiden Carroll and then Dominique S.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is Hallie Willis with the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness.

We support the sponsor's work to develop safe lots, storage, and high-quality community-based outreach to people living in RVs.

That should move forward without delay.

We also deeply appreciate amendments from Council Members Lynn and Foster, sponsored by Council Member Kettle, that would create a work group and allow more census periods.

But we still have significant concerns about the permit program and changes to parking rules and what it would do to people experiencing homelessness.

People who can't get or keep a permit will be at risk of having their vehicle and all their belongings impounded without notice, leaving them to try and survive as best they can on the street without any access to shelter at all.

Instead of an expensive, complex, and punitive permit system, we urge you to move forward with the parts of this legislation that work.

Create additional safe parking, community-based

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Aiden followed by Dominique S and then Donovan Cook.

When I heard about this, I was excited, but at this point, I almost want to apologize.

I know every time this spring and summer I came here, I mentioned the need for safe parking, but the devil's in the details.

And as written, this is unconstitutional and it's going to get you sued and lose.

It's not safe parking if you have to sign over the title to your vehicle to get in.

There are so many people who feel like they were just bait-and-switched into the existing quote-unquote safe lot that was in the inner bay.

You do not destroy the existing semi-safe parking and create unequal treatment places people have been staying safely for years to create this tiny fake safe parking where they don't get to use their personal property like everybody else.

If you go through with this as written, it's going to increase what you just heard about is the problem in Belltown and the solution.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dominique S followed by Donovan Cook and then Jen Manlieff.

Hi, my name's Dominique and I'm a participant of Share Wheels Tent City 3. We as a community support more shelter, more resources, and more safe parking in Seattle.

What we have resource-wise in parking is not enough according to the scale of homelessness and people living in their vehicles.

We oppose punitive approaches such as these permits because it's pushing people who are homeless by pushing those that live in RVs out of the community due to a few bad apples that are breaking other laws.

Why not enforce the laws we already have?

This isn't the right approach.

It is coercion rather than building trust within the communities.

It risks vulnerable people losing their only property, their RVs.

What we need is safety, more parking, not permits.

We need more resources, not permits.

We need zero barrier housing, not permits.

Homeless rights are human rights.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Donovan followed by Jen Manlioff and Chanel Horner.

Good day, Councilman.

My name is Donovan.

I am part of Sharewell, Tent City 3. We support more shelter, safe parking for our houseless brothers and sisters.

We oppose punitive approach for permits due to the fact they are not beneficial they feel like a punishment and puts the people at risk of losing their only real property.

Please reconsider two-hour parking until legislation can approve adequate spots for RVs and storage and housing for the individuals themselves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jen followed by Chanel Horner and Anitra Freeman.

And Jen, if you could correct me on how to pronounce your last name, I'd appreciate it.

You did great the second time.

Hi, my name is Jen Manleaf, and I am the program manager of Vehicle Resident Outreach.

We are an org that has been working with folks living in their vehicles since 2011, formerly known as the Scofflaw Mitigation Team.

Our goal is to help vehicle residents be as safe and legal in their vehicles until they're ready to move towards more stability, and then we help them navigate that path as well.

I am a program manager, which means I prefer budgets and spreadsheets and coaching my team, not press and policy.

And because of that, I think a piece of this story that has been missed, because I haven't been doing press, is that when Council Member Dan started this process, he reached out to our org and has been working with us this entire time to build this legislation.

instead of coming up with a parking ban like most cities, Council Member William Strauss was intent on this being a dignifying, safe process by talking to us about what vehicle residents need.

And so that piece hasn't been heard, but you'll hear a bit more from my colleague Jen when she comes.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chanel, followed by Anitra, and then Steve again.

Hello, my name is Chanel, and I've been volunteering with the KCRHA Vehicle Residency Task Force for four years.

I'm currently the only person there with lived experience, currently living the experience.

I live in a tiny home right now, Inner Bay.

And I would like to invite you guys to come, before you make this decision on the permits, to come to one of our meetings that we've been having for four years about this very subject because we've diligently trying to change things and improve the way people living in vehicles live.

And if you guys came to the meeting, we could discuss this further.

But I really think that the permits don't make a lot of sense, We've already registered our vehicles and also there aren't enough services that are available for people to actually accept.

There are unacceptable services.

A lot of the times they won't allow dogs, they won't allow couples.

It doesn't work for everybody.

So I mean, to tell you that you're going to get your home taken away after three times of offered services that aren't acceptable isn't really fair.

And so I don't see what the point of permitting somebody is if you're just going to take it away anyway.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Anitra, followed by Steve and then Sam Wolf.

Good morning, Anitra Freeman with Cher Wheel.

When you are homeless and broke, it is a hard daily struggle just to survive, and you are constantly exhausted.

Adding more bureaucratic burdens to people who are already burdened makes the title of this legislation bitterly ironic.

It is cruel, and it does not solve any of the underlying problem.

it risks losing the only home that people have.

Continue to add safe lots, shelter and housing and bag this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, our next speaker is Steve followed by Sam Wolf and then Lydia O'Taylor.

The adding of lots is a good logical idea, more opportunity.

Our communities around Seattle continue to tighten the noose around us by being less friendly.

At some point, the citizens of Seattle, that middle 90% or more, need to be considered because if you've ever had a RV or truck or something parked in front or near your driveway so you can't see to get out.

And it sits there for weeks, the 72-hour joke we have in Seattle.

So I think permits are probably a bit out of the question at this point.

I think we should be taking a look at doing better.

Even raising the minimum wage might even help a little bit, because I wouldn't be surprised for a lot of people in those RVs.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker is Sam Wolf, followed by Lydia O. Taylor.

And then our last in-person speaker will be Jen Adams.

This one?

Morning, Council.

My name is Sam Wolf.

I work for PDA as the local policy director.

I first want to appreciate VRO for the important work they do for this relatively underserved population, and to Councilmember Strauss for consulting them closely while crafting this legislation.

I'm glad to see new resources coming online, and as the system continues to develop, I'd like to see close attention to several design aspects.

First, managing the permitting system in a way that makes it accessible for people who face additional barriers, or for people who don't own the vehicles they live in.

Two, a way to utilize existing city personnel to manage the permitting system, rather than hiring eight new FTEs.

And finally, I'd like to see service providers have continued input, especially in regards to what constitutes an appropriate offer of shelter.

I'm appreciative of the discussion space that Councilmember Strauss has held thus far, and I hope to see continued work to make this system one that will be accessible and which will support the well-being of our folks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next in-person speaker will be Lydia and then our last in-person speaker will be Jen Adams.

Hi, name is Lydia Taylor.

I've never lived in an RV before, so I don't know anything about how that process works, but just wanted to show solidarity with my RV neighbors.

to not banish them, but to also support extra RV lots because, I mean, I do remember being housed as a kid and having my older brother's RV parked in front of the driveway, which was pretty annoying and pretty understandably so.

That's it.

Thank you.

Our last in-person speaker is Jen Adams.

Direct service, that's what I do.

I work with people in RVs.

I lived in a van.

I hear from them all the time.

They are tired of their windows being broke, being chased from neighborhood to neighborhood.

No one's brought up the 72 hour, but that's the one thing that they consistently have to chase right now.

72 hours moving, 72 hours moving, 72 hours moving.

It's exhausting.

My people in RVs need a safe place to park.

Whether or not they want housing or not, they want that choice.

They definitely need more parking spaces, places to go.

We need something like this.

We need places for RVs to go.

We need to get them off the streets so that they're safe, safe from everyone.

They want this.

They really want a place to go.

That's what we need.

We need to do something.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move to remote speakers.

So our first remote speaker for this will be Taylor Farley.

Taylor, please press star six.

Hello, this is Taylor Farley.

I am the Executive Director at Queer Power Alliance.

Thank you for the forward thinking of supporting vehicle residents and for creating potential safe spaces.

As we know, we need more safe parking lots.

We need RV storage so that people don't have to choose between accepting shelter or losing the one last possession that they live in as their homes.

These are investments in people and investments in dignity.

The city describes this proposal as creating a pathway to housing for people living in vehicles, but the pathway for housing cannot begin by threatening someone to lose their home today.

Permits do not secure housing if someone cannot access and maintain a permit.

The answer cannot be criminalizing when they're sleeping, where they sleep, and force them to abandon their vehicles.

Our next remote speaker will be Jasmine Clark.

Jasmine, please press star 69.

Good morning Chair Kettle and members of the committee.

My name is Jasmine Clark.

I'm the Smart Justice Policy Program Director at the ACLU of Washington.

Yesterday we submitted a letter outlining our concerns with the proposed RV legislation and I want to briefly reinforce those concerns today.

We support the city's investments in outreach, safe lots, shelter and housing, but those investments should not be paired with an enforcement structure that further destabilizes people who have nowhere else to go.

For someone living in an RV, that vehicle is not simply transportation.

It is often their home, their shelter, and their primary source of stability.

Impounding it without notice can leave someone worse off than before.

As outlined in our letter, this also raises significant constitutional concerns under City of Seattle v. Long and about whether people without meaningful access to shelter or housing will simply be displaced from one location to another.

Seattle can address legitimate public safety concerns without criminalizing or displacing people simply because they are living in vehicles.

We urge the committee to address these concerns before moving this legislation forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker will be Reid.

Mayor Reid, please press star six.

Good morning, council members.

I currently live in an RV and I want to say many of us living in vehicles are not addicts and criminals.

We are just doing the best we can with very little income.

By forcing RV residents to register with a government database, restricting our movements to industrial zones, subjecting us to strict rules and threatening state seizure of our homes, this ordinance is a clear criminalization of poverty and will force more people into tent encampments.

It is deeply unfair to punish law-abiding RV residents for the actions of others by forcing us into dangerous environments like the so-called safe lots, tiny home villages, or DESC buildings where people too often leave in body bags.

Ask yourself if you would live in those places.

The most disturbing part is that Councilmember Strauss admitted this is entirely about aesthetics when he stated that if we have to live in vehicles, we need to find one not as unique as an RV.

This is not assistance.

It is an authoritarian attempt to hurt us out of public sight.

I urge this council to reject this dangerous over- Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Elizabeth.

Elizabeth, please press star six.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Archambeau and I live in the South Lake Union neighborhood.

I want everyone in Seattle to have a safe and stable home.

and that's why I urge you to vote no on the proposed changes to the parking rules and the Vehicle Arrested Assistance Program permit, or VRAP.

VRAP threatens to take away people who live in RVs' safety and security because people who can't get a VRAP won't be able to park in their, I'm sorry, won't be able to park their live-in vehicle homes on the streets and then risk the possibility of their vehicle homes being towed.

This risk of towing will not help cure homelessness in Seattle.

I urge you to support other helpful pieces of this legislation package that work to set up RV safe site lots, expand high quality community-based outreach and create storage RV storage unit.

RV parking permit will...

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker will be Celine Russo.

Celine, please press star six.

Celine Russo, I'm a district one

My name is Celine Russo and I'm a District 1 resident.

While I fully support more RV safe lots, I oppose the RV permit program.

The city is already doing an excellent job of impounding RVs.

The incessant rate of sweeps over the past four years has exhausted vehicle RV residents and those trying to help them and led to a noticeable decrease in vehicles.

But that does not mean people have shelter.

Most of our neighbors are back on the streets in tents.

which means the city is spending tens of millions every year to steal the homes of our poorest and most dispossessed neighbors, leaving them more vulnerable, less protection from rats and rain, less security for themselves and their possessions, and less stability.

It is way harder to move and save your belongings when you're being swept in a tent versus an RV.

Our city notoriously does not have enough dignified and appropriate shelter, and until we do, programs like this will not solve any of our city's very real problems and are just straight up harmful and cruel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote speaker is Kelly.

Kelly, please press star six.

My name is Kelly.

I'm against restrictive permitting and parking bans.

It is vile that this system would be based on a one-time ever census that would eventually phase out all permit holders.

That's the first thing you should change and it's how I know this is not actually about providing effective policy but about appearances.

is disturbing and disingenuous to talk about services, but focus on impounding people's homes.

The positive, yes, we should build more safe parking lots, we should invest in storage, we should offer outreach, but I'm a social worker and I know that we do not actually have adequate resources to offer.

An RV is someone's home.

This policy will lead to more people, more vulnerable on the street, and just like suites, it will be incredibly expensive and ineffective.

An RV is protected under the Homestead Act, so people will be in a constant state of trying to get the RV back from the impound because it cannot be kept from them with costly impound fees, but what will happen, because it has in the past, but the homes that actively violate it, people will sue the city, there will be lawsuits, which will cost money and does not address real issues.

Instead of a permitting system that wastes money on violence, you should invest in affordable housing, safe parking lots and storage.

Essentially, I'm asking you to take out the violence of a policy you say is about helping people.

Our next remote speaker will be Orion.

Orion, please press star six.

Orion, please press star six.

Orion will come back to you.

Our next remote speaker will be Arden Mayer.

Arden, please press star six.

Hi.

I'm a social worker and a majority of my clients are homeless people with substance use disorders.

We know stability is an imperative within this population.

Having a safe place with a locking door enables folks to maintain their physical and mental well-being and keep their belongings, including essential documentation needed for access to more permanent housing.

These folks can be highly impaired.

I own a condo, have two degrees, two professional licenses, and two jobs.

I don't have a permit for my car because I haven't gotten around to registering it in my name.

So how can we expect less advantaged individuals to meet this obligation?

If you make the safe option and convenient, you incentivize risky behavior.

I understand the intention behind this is to remove access to RV living.

I can assure you evidence shows the only effective intervention here will be compassionate and supportive.

You cannot remove someone's pathway to stability without providing better options, and I think it's wise to invest in those.

Thank you.

Let's return to Orion.

Orion, please press star six.

Orion.

All right, we'll move on to our next remote speaker who is Catherine Rivello.

Catherine, please press star six.

Catherine, please press star six.

All right, we'll move on to our next one.

Our next remote speaker will be Jeremy Wolf.

Oh wait, Catherine, I see that you've come on.

Sorry.

Hi, my name's Catherine Ravello.

I'm a board member with Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness.

I'm here to urge you to vote no on the changes to the parking rules and the vehicle resident assistance program permit.

As someone who has worked in housing and homeless services for over 15 years, I've seen firsthand the need for safe parking lots, high-quality shelter, vehicle storage options, and community-based outreach.

However, this permitting process will not bring people inside more quickly or in greater numbers, and instead could put many people at risk of losing what stability they do have.

I strongly urge you to retain the supportive aspects of this proposal, especially establishing safe parking sites enhanced with outreach and service connections.

However, the permit process will only serve to destabilize anyone who cannot get one or who loses theirs.

And we'll add a layer of bureaucracy that distracts from our community's actual goal of bringing people into safe and stable environments.

Thank you.

Orion, let's try this for the third time's the charm.

Orion, can you please press star six?

All right, our next remote speaker will be Jeremy Wolf.

Jeremy, can you please press star six?

Council members, Strauss, and colleagues, my name is Jeremy Wolf.

Residents have spoken today unanimously.

A permit denies shelter to people in need.

If you want to help people, provide safe lots.

The testimony today has been virtually unanimous.

Drop the permits, do the census, and develop RV safe lots.

This legislation creates paperwork.

It's not supporting people.

You heard multiple testimonies that RV lots are successful, not enough housing is available, 72-hour moves are cruel, and we don't have adequate resources.

Every testimony, including from an RV resident who pointed out the bills about aesthetics, has been against the punitive legislation, except for VRO, who is not a neutral commentator as a writer, and said she cares about spreadsheets, not the policy aspect.

How can you hear these comments and ignore them and pass this?

Please do not pass this as written and take it back to the working group until it is grounded in supportive loss instead of bureaucratic permits.

Thank you for bringing the safe lot legislation forward, but please fix it.

Orion, let's do this again.

I see that you have come online.

You have a minute.

Okay, Dr. Janice Clark, please press star six.

Okay y'all, hello in Cherokee.

I'm Dr. Janice Clark, founder and visionary of Safe Homes, a community-based organization incorporated in 1995 in Washington State.

I rise to testify on CB121281 and its companion legislation to include Resolution 3-2216 that established the Vehicle Resident Assistance Program.

I agree that increased funding for outreach and services to vehicle residents could provide benefit to people of color who are homeless I also agree with the concerns lifted up by the speaker, Jasmine Clark from ACLU.

I also agree that this legislation can positively impact allowable storage of unaccompanied RVs and to promote safe storage of RVs for people transitioning to shelter and temporary housing.

The takeaway is that in your budget deliberation,

Our next remote speaker is David Haynes.

David, please press star six.

Hi, David Haynes.

I commend Council Member Strauss for a truly comprehensive vehicle residency program.

This legislative package shows more genuine effort, thought, and proactive strategy than all of the city's failed drug crisis legislation combined.

It acts as a rare Beacon of real work in a chamber too often paralyzed by inaction.

But a brilliant policy on paper means nothing without execution.

We do not have until next year to let bureaucratic dysfunction sort itself out.

The cold weather is coming now.

We need to break the cycle of passive waiting.

Right now we possess a massive underutilized resource, the National Guard.

It is time to demand a noble humanitarian deployment of the Guard to rapidly stand up the emergency capacity we need today.

These men and women are trained engineers, logistical experts and builders.

They are equipped to respond to crisis.

And let's be clear, a severe lack of basic functional first world utilities heading into a freezing winter is a crisis.

Using them to wrap...

Our last remote speaker will be Doug Bambrick.

Doug, please press star six.

Hello, thank you, council.

I'm Doug Bambrick and I'm speaking on behalf of some small rental households.

I appreciate the non-political aspect of this.

It seems like council member Strauss has been thoughtful and just a simple manager trying to manage this with, it seems like a rather thoughtful compromise with the permitting process and it's much appreciated.

There's plenty of, you know, there's plenty of people that didn't show up at the meeting today.

It's good to see the housing advocates are here and I'm just, again, voicing my sincere support for the work that's been put in by Council Member Strauss.

It's with deep appreciation.

Thank you so much.

That ends our public hearing.

Thank you.

That was our last registered speaker present to speak online or in person at this public hearing.

The public hearing on ordinance 121281 is now closed.

The council rules will need to be suspended before we can vote on this bill on the same day a hearing was held.

If there's no objection, the council rules will be suspended to allow the committee to vote on this bill.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the rules are suspended and the committee will proceed with a vote.

I move the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121281. Is there a second?

Second.

I'm not on this committee.

Yes, Council Member Strauss, you can't second, but Vice Chair- Second.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Central staff, please present an overview of the bill.

would update the land use code in order to allow storage of recreational vehicles and other vehicles.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss, honorary Public Safety Committee meeting member today.

As sponsor, would you like to address the bill, please?

Thank you, Chair Kettle.

I'm going to be brief on all of these bills.

Seattle is an outlier when it comes to rules regarding parking of RVs on public right-of-ways.

And as was said in public testimony today, it is my intent and it is my focus to make sure that humans are centered in this whole process.

and that I've been working in collaboration with many who do direct service throughout this entire time.

This bill before us right now is one of the critical pieces.

The Land Use Code today prohibits us from using empty lots to store people's vehicles if they are in shelter at a location that is not physically attached to that parking lot.

This bill before us today allows us the flexibility to store people's vehicles, whether they're RVs, vans, or cars, while they not only enter shelter, also for them when they're entering housing.

Because for much of our shelter and definitely for our permanent supportive housing, we have chosen to build units over parking spots, which is the right choice.

But that leaves a lot of people out because they have vehicles, whether they live in them or not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any comments, colleagues?

Not seeing any.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Also thank you, Ms. Allen and Ms. LeBrock for your comments here today.

I note that this is building on work that we did earlier this year regarding transitional encampments in a more general sense, so very similar.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on recommendation to pass the bill?

Councilmember Juarez?

I think you're muted, Councilmember.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin.

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

That's four in favor.

Okay.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that council pass Council Bill 121281 will be sent to the city council.

Chair, apologies.

My audio was not working.

Okay.

Can we do a quick re-vote please, Clerk?

Sure.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lin?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Five in favor.

Okay, the motion carries again.

Thank you for highlighting your difficulties.

Councilmember Rivera, the community recommendation that the Council pass Council Bill 121281 will be sent to the City Council.

We'll now return to the order of the agenda with Items 2 and 3. Councilmembers, in the interest of time and because Items 2 and 3 do not have any proposed amendments, I am recommending in partnership with sponsored Councilmember Strauss that we consider these two items as a consent package of legislation to be heard and voted on at one time.

a member may request to remove either item for a separate vote.

Will the clerk please read items two and three into the record?

Council Bill 121279, an ordinance relating to leases, updating the Director of Finance and Administrative Services authority to execute leases when the land is used for transitional encampments, outdoor storage for any vehicle or overnight respite areas for drivers, amending section 3.127.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Council Bill 121280, an ordinance relating to the traffic code, revising the definition of junk motor vehicle, and amending section 11.14.268 of the Seattle Municipal Code for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you.

Again, central staff.

Will you please provide an overview of the bills?

and provide an overview of both bills, is that correct?

Yes, please.

Yes, okay.

Council Bill 121279 regarding finance and administrative lease authority allows the Director of Financial Administrative Services to sign leases for up to 100,000 square feet if the site is to be used for transitional encampments, respite areas for overnight overnight respite areas for drivers or for vehicle storage, including vehicles such as recreational vehicles.

The second bill, Council Bill 121280 regarding the junk vehicle definition updates the definition of junk vehicles in order to provide clarity around what is considered to be a junk vehicle.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any questions on the bills, the two bills, and would a member like to remove an item for an individual vote?

Looking, seeing none.

Colleagues, I move that committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121279 and 121280. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's moved and second to recommend passage of the bills.

Council Member Strauss, again as sponsor, would you like to provide any final comments on the two bills?

Thank you.

The FAS Signing Authority is one that cuts red tape to get this work done faster and the junk vehicle definitions are not expanded, rather they are clarified and in some ways they are restricted.

In the current code, any number of windows that are broken, whether it's a side or front window, is considered the same.

Here we are saying that if your windshield is broken to the point of you can't see through it, that is in fact different than having a broken side window.

and so this is a clarification, not an expansion and you could interpret this as in some places a restriction.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any additional comments or questions for either bill?

Hearing, seeing none.

Will the clerk please call the roll and recommendation to pass Council Bill 121279 and 121280. Council Member Ruarez.

Aye.

Councilmember Lin?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council pass the bills both 121279 and 121280 will be sent to the city council.

Okay, moving on.

By the way, first I also want to note, thank you to our new clerk for joining us at this time.

Well, the committee has already considered item four and will now consider items five.

Will the clerk please read item five into the record?

Council Bill 121282, an ordinance relating to vehicle residency permitting and outreach, amending ordinance 127362, which adopted the 2026 budget, including the 2026 to 2031 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget, creating positions, modifying a proviso and improving a proviso.

Thank you.

We will now place the bill before us.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121282. Is there a second on this bill?

Second.

Thank you.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Central staff, will you please present an overview of the bill and proposed consent package of amendments.

Yes, I'll start with an overview of the bill.

This is an appropriation bill.

As previously discussed, there is 3.5 million of ongoing funding for work related to recreational vehicles or other vehicle residents in the 2026 adopted budget, along with 1.5 million of one-time money that was carried forward.

This bill does a couple of things.

It moves appropriation authority for some of that money from HSD, to SDOT to hire a new permit technician and do some infrastructure upgrades to implement the permit program.

It creates the authority for seven new outreach positions in HSD and one new permit position in SDOT.

It amends an existing proviso on the vehicle money in HSD to ensure that it could be used for all vehicle residents and that it also creates a new proviso stating that up to $2 million should be used for certain uses, including contracted outreach and expansion of capacity for contracted outreach.

and I will now walk through the amendments.

Do you wanna just scroll through this?

Okay, I'll start with Amendment 1 here.

The sponsor is Council Member Kettle and the author is Council Member Strauss, so Council Member Kettle is sponsoring on his behalf.

This amendment would add essentially an allowable use to the existing proviso and the new proviso.

So the new eligible use would include design and implementation of a recreational vehicle buyback program.

And that would be under the Human Services Department addressing homelessness BSL.

I will stop there.

Do you want me to run through both of these and then see if there are questions?

Yes, yes, let's do that.

So amendment two, also sponsored by Councilmember Kettle on behalf of Councilmember Strauss, would further define the total appropriations deployed towards specific uses.

So there's currently a $2 million proviso, and this just clarifies that no more than $750,000 of the amount under the proviso may be expended for the startup cost of contracted outreach.

So it places a cap on how much can be used for the startup cost of contracted outreach.

And Amendment 3, please.

Amendment 3 simply removes a recital that indicates that there might be future amendments to the bill because those have just been covered with the prior two that we discussed.

I'll stop there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any items that Council Member would like to briefly highlight or remove from this consent package of amendments?

Anything you'd like to say?

I would just add briefly that I see in these amendments, particularly the first one, like lessons learned from what we've been doing before with Salmon Bay Village and other opportunities that we've seen.

So thank you for that.

I move to adopt a consent package of amendments to Council Bill 121282. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt a consent package of amendments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent package of amendments to Council Bill 121282.

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lin?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Okay, the consent amendment package to Council Bill 121282 is adopted and will be incorporated in the bill.

Okay, I move to...

Actually, we've already done all that.

I move to amend the bill as presented.

Wait, actually, it's been amended, and so now I would like to move forward regarding the bill as it is, and Council Members, well actually, the overall bill, amended bill, I need to do that.

Can I move the amended bill as presented by the package of amendments?

Councilman Juarez.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Did you say my name?

I.

OK, I. Councilman Berlin.

Sorry, I have questions here.

OK, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I rather have a statement to make.

I actually have concerns with moving forward with this overall appropriation because it contains a number of FTEs and we don't know what the actual new program, what it will need, how many actual FTEs we need.

And given that today the budget is announced, I think it's premature to put ongoing funding toward this efforts.

I understand that last year we appropriated ongoing funding the 3.5 million but given where we are with the budget this year and given that it comes out today and given we don't know how much it's going to cost to actually implement this program I'm going to be voting no on this particular bill to appropriate the funding because I think we need to be looking at the budget first and seeing what is actually needed versus what we can accommodate in the budget once we're able to review it.

But I do appreciate the sponsor's overall intent and why the money was recommended to move forward in this fashion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Bill 121282 has been amended and moved as that and seconded.

Thank you for that comment.

Are there any final comments before we vote on the bill as amended?

Colleagues?

Will the clerk please call the roll and recommendation to pass Council Bill 121282 as amended?

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lynn?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries and the committee recommendation that the council pass the bill as amended will be sent to City Council.

Will the clerk please read item six into the record?

Council Bill 121283 in ordinance relating to the traffic code creating a new permitting program for owners of motorhomes and travel trailers to support a structured pathway to shelter amending sections 11.14.350 1114660 1116120 1123440 1130-040, 1172070, and of adding sections 1114672, 1172071, and 1123170 to the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you, and well done on all those numbers.

We will now place the bill before us.

I move that committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121283. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Central staff, can you please begin an overview of the bill and the consent package of amendments.

This bill would create a new permit program for motorhomes and travel trailers that are over 80, greater than 80 inches wide and have cooking, lodging, sorry, lodging, cooking and or sewer for unpermitted vehicles or vehicles Let me just stop there.

That's a good summary of the program, given the time that we have.

So I will start running through amendments.

Amendment 1 is sponsored by Councilmember Lin, and it would create a vehicle residency implementation review workgroup and this work group would be tasked with assessing program readiness, enforcement capacity, administrative processes.

It would begin meeting immediately after adoption of the bill if council adopted it, and it would be responsible for providing operational adjustment recommendations 60 days prior to the effective date.

of the legislation, which is in March of 2027. It would specifically be responsible for providing recommendations about how to provide opportunities for vehicle residents to get in compliance with the permit requirements, also how it would address which vehicles will receive violation warnings before being impounded.

and it would also be responsible for ensuring that the census collected a certain amount of information or type of information, including, for example, if vehicle residents are the registered owners of their vehicles or not.

I will move on to Amendment 2. This amendment simply clarifies that the census that will be conducted by the Human Services Department will be citywide so as to ensure that it is comprehensive and tries to capture all motorhomes and travel trailers that would be subject to the permit.

The third one, Amendment 3, sorry, that second amendment was sponsored by Councilmember Lynn.

The third amendment is sponsored by Councilmember Saka and it would create an annual report, the first one to be due in April of 2028. The annual report would include information such as the number of permits applied for, issued and rejected, the number of permits revoked and the reasons why they were revoked, geographic location of issued permits, the number of permit holders who accepted and were placed into shelter or safe lot or housing the reasons why people declined shelter or housing the number of violations issued for non-compliance and demographic information Amendment number four would require that geographic service areas for vehicle residents be at least 500 feet away from elementary schools, secondary schools, preschools, childcare centers, play fields, playground, beaches, or community centers.

And I do wanna note that Amanda and I just sent out an updated map to council members probably about 20 minutes ago, reflecting to the best of our ability in the time we had.

We had sent one around previously that showed sort of the impact of this buffer zone up to and including childcare centers, playgrounds, play fields, and then we provided to the best of our ability in the time we had a map showing the impact of beaches and community centers.

so you should have that in your inbox and we can pull it up here today too if we need to.

Okay, Amendment 5. This amendment would add Seattle Public Utilities to the list of departments that the Department of Transportation director must consult when creating the director's rule for this program and it is sponsored by Councilmember Kettle on behalf of Councilmember Strauss.

Amendment 6. Sorry, I'm probably talking faster than I can scroll.

Amendment 6, again, sponsored by Councilmember Kettle on behalf of Councilmember Strauss.

This would just clarify that geographic service areas within the industrial zones should be aligned with the existing zones for contracted outreach and city outreach staff, really, to ensure that outreach staff know where to find the people that they're working with at certain times of day.

Amendment 7, again sponsored by Councilmember Kettle on behalf of Councilmember Strauss.

This would clarify the definition of motorhome.

Currently, the definition says that a motorhome must include lodging and then cooking or sewage disposal.

This would change it to clarify that it must include lodging, cooking, or sewage disposal, so one out of the three in order to qualify under this definition.

Amendment number eight is sponsored by Councilmember Rivera, and this amendment would add a recital that declares Council's intent to consider in the upcoming budget process, which is happening today, starting today, a proviso that would ensure that Seattle Police Department does not spend its parking enforcement officer salary dollars for any other purpose but paying for PEO salaries.

And I'm going to Am I going to stop there?

Okay, I'm stopping there.

Those are the amendments that are part of the proposed consent package.

Thank you so much.

As you can imagine, I think all of us have a lot of paper, and we're following both reading and listening and all of the above, and I'm also getting notes from my team.

So one was to recognize that Council Member Foster has joined us remotely.

so welcome Council Member Foster.

Are there any items that Council Member would like to briefly highlight or remove from the consent package of amendments?

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to remove amendment number seven, please.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Okay.

I'll be brief in just saying that I appreciate all my colleagues' work together.

The fact that we have a consent package on these amendments says that most of these are technical fixes, good clarifications, and I want to highlight and provide gratitude to Council Member Lynn.

Your amendment here makes this bill stronger and better in a number of different ways.

We initially and intentionally set the effective date for April 30th of 2027, which is many months away, so as we can align and create the clarity that is needed both internally within the city and externally for the people who have new regulations to comply with, that they have the understanding of how they can comply, that they have the assistance from our vehicle residency outreach and Salvation Army contracts.

They are going to be providing the assistance to help people get their titles.

to help them get repairs, to help them become code compliant.

That's why the effective date is April 30th with a 90-day warning period until July 31st, 2027. Full effectiveness of this bill is not until August 1st of 2027. Councilmember Lynn's amendment clarifies and codifies how we will engage in this both internal and external implementation work as well as directors' rules creation so that we will receive and we've already been meeting.

I've been hosting these meetings for the last two weeks and before council recess and we will chat with you as well.

And what we have to say is the important part here is that the report is due to council 66-0 days before the effective date so that we can bring code changes if needed.

And I will be happy to shepherd those code changes across the finish line before it becomes effective in April.

The importance of moving this entire package today is that many people don't start work internally within the city until it's clear that it's going to happen.

If we delay the vote on this today, there will be lack of clarity within city departments whether or not we are going in this direction.

It is also incredibly important that we provide clear direction to anyone in our city about where we are going by April 30th and by July 31st of next year.

If we delay this vote, that clarity will not be present.

And Councilmember Lynn's amendment is critical in ensuring that everyone continues to work together to refine this process, to ensure that it is human-centered, and that we have the time to make adjustments before full effectiveness.

Thank you.

And I appreciate everyone else's comments, but I'm going to be short because the Mayor's speech starts in 19 minutes.

Thank you.

And I do appreciate as well, Council Member Lind, for your amendments, Council Member Saka.

And I know I'm the sponsor, but like Amendment No. 5 reflects reality.

The SPU is so important in terms of what we're doing with RVs.

and thank you Councilmember Rivera on parking enforcement budget.

A slight 18 minutes from now that may be spoken to, but we'll learn more about parking enforcement budget in half hour plus.

Okay.

So we've removed Number 7. Amendment Number 7 has been removed and will be addressed separately.

I move to adopt a consent package of amendments to Council Bill 121283, excluding Amendment Number 7. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to adopt the consent package of amendments to Council Bill 121283, excluding Amendment Number 7. Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent package?

Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Lin?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Chair Kettle?

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Okay, the consent package of amendments to Council Bill 121283 excluding amendment number seven is adopted and will be incorporated in the bill.

Now it's time to vote on individual amendments to Council Bill 121283. We now have number seven being added to the mix.

Probably best is to keep them in numerical order.

Okay.

I move to actually number seven.

Okay.

I move to amend the bill as presented in amendment seven.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded as to amend the bill as presented on amendment seven.

I'm the sponsor, but Council Member Strauss, you are recognized to address it.

Thank you.

This is just clarifying the definition of what is a lived-in vehicle.

Thank you.

What is the definition of the recreational vehicle motorhome?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was going to ask if there are any comments on amendment number seven.

Obviously, Councilmember Rivera, over to you.

Thank you, Council President.

I mean, excuse me, Chair Kettle.

I asked for this amendment to be removed because it loosens the restrictions that are originally in place on what defines a motor vehicle.

There are three items in the original ordinance, if you will, and this one loosens that to, instead of it being two of the three have it be defined as a recreational vehicle.

It only requires one of the three, and I think it's not helpful to the definition of the vehicle.

If someone is living in it, I think those other pieces, like the sewage, both the place to sleep, the sewage and the cooking piece, two of those three really should be in place for it to qualify.

So while I appreciate the intent of the author, I will be voting no on this particular amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this point, is there any additional comments on amendment number seven?

Okay, Council Member Strales says, Arthur, do you have any last comment on number seven?

No, just we wouldn't have included it if we didn't think it was an important amendment.

Okay, thank you.

I would urge support, thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment seven?

Council Member Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lynn?

Yes.

Council Member Rivera?

No.

Councilmember Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Four in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries and amendment number seven is adopted.

Okay, we're gonna go back now to amendment number nine.

Can we go to number nine?

Central staff.

We are just bringing it back up.

Give us one moment.

Colleagues would be best to eventually all three in a row

In this amendment, just backing up, the current proposed definition for a motorhome includes the criteria that the vehicle is more than 80 inches wide.

And this amendment specifies that this 80-inch measurement does not include mirrors or accessories.

Okay, thank you.

And then Amendment 11 is sponsored by Councilmember Saka.

This amendment would change the criteria of the definition of a motorhome's width from being 80 inches wide down to 78 inches wide.

This change would increase the number and type of vehicles eligible for the Vehicle Resident Assistance Permit Program as some Class B motorhomes like sprinter vans would now meet this criteria.

assuming that they met the other criteria of definition of a motorhome.

And I will just also add that when originally putting together this amendment package, we thought that amendment 10 and 11 might be mutually exclusive, but after talking it through more with the deputy city clerks, they are not.

So you can, counsel can vote on one or both of them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so the difference between the earlier one, lodging, comma, cooking, or sewage.

Okay.

All right, thank you for that.

I would say we'll go through each one individually now, starting with Amendment No.

9.

I move to amend the bill as presented in Amendment No.

9.

Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment No.

9.

I am the sponsor, but I'm doing on behalf of Council Member Foster.

Council Member Foster as author, would you like to provide comments on this amendment?

Thank you so much, Chair Kettle.

I'd love to do that.

And colleagues, I apologize.

I'm off camera.

I just wrapped up a listening session with small businesses and I am in transit but wanted to join to speak to this amendment today and thank you so much Chair Kettle for doing me the courtesy of sponsoring this amendment.

So, you know, my perspective here is that we know that homelessness is not a static event or experience and so I am proposing to make an update in our approach here that clarifies that the Human Services Department could do possible future censuses if needed.

And the intent here is to allow the city the ability to identify eligible vehicle residents as circumstances might change.

From my perspective, this is an important change that would allow for us to have multiple censuses to ensure that we are reaching the residents who need to be served by many of the important service provisions that are in this package.

Thank you, Council Member Foster.

Is there any additional comments on amendment number nine, colleagues?

Seeing none.

Sorry, go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, Zoom's not working with the raise hand function.

I appreciate the intent that Council Member Foster brings this amendment forward.

However, if this amendment is passed, it will state to the general public that any RV in western Washington, Oregon, Idaho should come to the city of Seattle because we will allow you to stay here.

The goal of this legislation is to better regulate these large vehicles, not vehicle residency.

There's no provision in any of these bills that prohibits is the only thing that really touches on living in a vehicle in all of these is creating better supports, expanding more resources, hiring staff to assist people, being legal and law compliant in their vehicles so that they may have a stable life.

This amendment opens the door in a way that is not helpful at this time.

If we are successful at implementing this program, it should come back to council for a public discussion of if it should be expanded.

We do censuses, another way of saying this, we do by name lists for encampment resolutions that don't result in sweeps all the time.

A decade ago, people said by name lists shouldn't be used because people didn't have identifications.

We now know that we start by getting people IDs as the first step in a by name list.

We can't open this front door this wide until we have the systems built to be able to appropriately assist the folks that we are telling to come here.

So I think that there are a lot of unintended consequences with this well-intended amendment, and we need to make sure that we have our programs and processes in place before we consider such an amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Lin.

Thank you, Chair Kettle.

I will be supporting and certainly appreciate the concerns you raised, Council Member Strauss.

I do think it's just important to point out that it does say possible future censuses, so it doesn't require, but just gives us that flexibility.

Depending upon, I think there's gonna be a lot of work that I'll speak to in a moment.

as this is implemented and a lot of lessons learned as we go forward and just, I see this as having that as a possibility if needed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lin.

Any others?

Thank you, Council Member Foster for the authoring the amendment and Council Member Strauss as the overall program for your comments.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number nine?

Councilmember Juarez?

Aye.

Councilmember Lin?

Yes.

Councilmember Rivera?

No.

Councilmember Saka?

Nay.

Chair Kettle?

No.

Two in favor, three opposed.

Okay, thank you.

We'll now move to amendment number 10. I move to amend the bill as presented in amendment number 10. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment 10. Councilmember Strauss, I am the sponsor again, but Councilmember Strauss is author.

Would you like to provide comments on this amendment?

Thank you.

I will be supporting this amendment and opposing Councilmember Saka's well-intended amendment in just a moment.

And this is why it is because we based the motor home definition, which was not clear in city code.

We based that off of the state code and our large vehicle definition, which is already in code.

That large vehicle definition is 80 inches.

A large vehicle is not supposed to be parking outside of the industrial zone as it is.

Cybertrucks are 80 inches.

All I'm saying here is that those 80 inches should not be encompassed of mirrors or accessories such as ladders because we are looking to define motorhomes in accordance with our large vehicle code.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Any comments?

I'm not seeing anything.

Okay.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number 10.

Council Member Juarez.

Yes.

Council Member Lin.

Yes.

Council Member Rivera.

Yes.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Five in favor, none opposed.

Okay.

Amendment number 10 is passed, carries, and amendment number is adopted.

Okay, number 11.

All right, I move to amend Council Bill 121283 as presented on amendment number 11.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment 11. Council Member Saka, sponsor, you are recognized to address it.

Thank you, Chair.

So this modest amendment is intended to to prevent some potentially unintended consequences.

The broader regulation seeks to regulate a specific class of lived-in vehicles.

And so one potential concern would be that this doesn't capture everything.

And we could, therefore, create a market for vehicles to circumvent and otherwise circumscribe the statutory definition of motorhome.

One way to do that, one way to best mitigate that is bringing a reasonable class that we're seeing citywide, see it in my district, but it's frankly citywide, and that is certain, not all Class B motorhomes, you know, such as Mercedes-Benz Sprinter-type vans into eligibility requirements for the program.

this is for a, this modifies the width, the definition of width only.

It still must meet the other statutorily prescribed definitions to be picked up and qualify for the program.

So I view this as more technical in nature and ask for your support.

Thank you.