City Council 10102023

Thank you, son.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Good afternoon, everybody.

It's been a bit.

It's been a while.

Welcome.

Today is October 10th, the meeting of the Seattle City Council.

I am now going to call it to order.

Would the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Present.

Thank you.

And Council President Juarez.

I am present.

Nine present.

Thank you.

Before we begin, if there is no objection, Council Member Sawant would like to or has to leave early today.

So we would like to be excused after I believe Council Member Sawant, correct me if I'm wrong, after about a half an hour to be excused.

Is there any objection to Council Member Sawant leaving today's council meeting early?

Okay, not hearing an objection customer, so what you are indeed excused from when you let us know when you're heading out and I'm guessing that's in about a half an hour.

Is that correct?

Yeah, about that.

Thank you.

President Morris.

You're welcome before we begin.

Let me we usually do this with council briefing, but I just want to remind everybody and particularly those folks that are watching and calling in.

The roll call order today on today's vote.

We're going to start with Council Member Herboldt, then Lewis, Morales, Mosqueda, Nelson, Peterson.

So on and Strauss and then myself, obviously customers won't be here towards the end, but that's just.

For the roll call for as long as you're here customers who want, so that's what the, that's what the roll call order is today.

And we usually do that for council briefing, but I wanted to do it for the matters that we have on today's agenda.

All right, that being said, moving on our on our agenda, Councilor Herbold has a proclamation for signature today for claiming the month of October 2023 to be domestic violence awareness month in Seattle and recognizing October 19th as purple Thursday.

Councilor Herbold, will you please lead us in this discussion regarding the proclamation?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let's see here.

So this afternoon, I'm asking for your signatures on a proclamation related to Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

And normally we would circulate signatures in briefings meeting.

We're not having briefings meeting this week.

And so instead we are collecting signatures today, Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Seattle.

is recognized on October 19th.

Well, the month is recognized all month, but recognizing October 19th is Purple Thursday.

The proclamation itself was drafted by the Human Services Department and the mayor is concurring.

My office circulated the proclamation to all council offices last Wednesday.

The year's theme of Domestic Violence Awareness Month this year is Everyone Knows Someone.

This theme illustrates the importance of public awareness and participation, since the effects of domestic violence are far reaching.

In Washington, 41.4% of women and 31.7% of men experience intimate intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner rape, and or intimate partner stalking in their lifetimes.

We have folks who are with us to accept today's proclamation.

And I think, Madam President, I'm assuming that you will facilitate, along with our city clerk, the process for acknowledging the willingness of my council colleagues to sign the proclamation.

And then perhaps after that, we can allow Amarantia Torres, co-director of the policy at the Gender Ending Based Violence Coalition.

And I believe we have HSD here as well, who are helping to accept the proclamation.

But I will pause and defer to you, Madam President, on the process for confirming signatures.

Thank you.

Councilor Herboldt is actually going to do that.

So right now I want to open the floor.

Council Member Herboldt introduced the proclamation.

We'll come back to suspending the rules.

But right now I'm asking if any of my colleagues would have any comments or anything that they would like to add regarding the proclamation that Council Member Herboldt has in front of us today.

Well, I do not see any hands up, but I would like to say, thank you.

Councilor for herbal domestic violence and the month that we do this and the dedication.

I remember the days where I was a young young lawyer that domestic violence wasn't even considered a misdemeanor.

It was considered domestic and therefore nobody responded.

There were not DV units.

There were none of those things in that day.

And now we have that.

And I want to thank you because I know every year you bring this forward and the people that work with DV, domestic violence victims, victims of sexual trafficking, all of those issues come together.

So I want to thank you for that, Councilmember Herbold, for again, bringing this to the attention.

of Seattle City Council and the public.

So thank you for that.

Is there any other words before I move on?

All right.

So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to ask the clerk to do a roll call of who would like their signature affixed to the proclamation.

And from there, I will suspend the rolls.

But Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on the proclamation proclaiming October 23rd to be Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Seattle and recognizing October 19th, 2023 as Purple Thursday.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

And Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Nine signatures will be affixed to the proclamation.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Council Member Herbold will now present the proclamation.

So I will suspend the rules to allow our guests to accept the proclamation and provide comments.

Not seeing any objections, the rules are suspended.

And Council Member Herbold, you're recognized in order to present the proclamation.

And of course, if there's no objection, to allow our guests to speak.

Go ahead, Council Member Herbold.

Hey, hello, can you hear me?

Okay, thank you and good afternoon.

Oh, great.

Thank you and good afternoon to the members of the city council.

My name is Amaranthea Torres, and I'm the co-executive director of the Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence.

The coalition educates, organizes, and leads over 30 community-based, culturally specific, and BIPOC-led organizations here in King County, all working towards gender equity and an end to gender-based violence such as sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence.

I'm honored to join you today in acknowledging October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and to make visible the persistent and pervasive nature of abuses of power that continue to thrive in our society.

As this proclamation states, domestic violence is a pattern of coercive behaviors that someone uses to maintain power and control over a partner, and like other forms of gender-based violence, is rooted in rigid gender roles, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of oppression.

A huge portion of Seattle residents as Councilmember her bold proclaimed in the reading the proclamation will experience some form of domestic violence or abuse in their lifetimes, and no one is immune from its far reaching impact.

Indeed, many of us do know people in our lives who have experienced domestic violence, whether or not they have shared that with us or not.

Many folks have been touched by this issue.

Despite efforts and campaigns to elevate the conversation about domestic violence, it still takes enormous courage for survivors to reach out and speak out about abuse, and they often take incredible risks in doing so.

Survivors deserve to have their courageous disclosures of abuse met with a robust network of well-resourced community advocates that they can call upon when they need support.

These community advocates meet survivors where they're at, both literally and figuratively, meeting survivors at court hearings, libraries, waiting rooms, and meeting them at whatever stage they're at in their healing from abuse.

The coalition is honored to support a dynamic and strong community of providers in Seattle and King County who support survivors every day as they reach out for support.

It's crucial that along with this proclamation, Seattle continues to support and prioritize services and programs that survivors of domestic violence rely on.

We are proud to stand with member programs and public officials like yourselves as we work collectively toward this goal and towards creating communities that are free from domestic violence and abuse.

Thank you so much to Council Member Herbold for your continued leadership in this area and to all the members of the City Council for making this issue a priority here today.

We appreciate this important acknowledgement and your ongoing leadership on behalf of survivors in our community.

So thank you so much for having us here today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, I see we have a hand up, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President and thank you Councilmember Herbold for bringing this forward today.

I can tell you we spent time in community this last weekend mourning the loss of somebody that should not have been taken from us because of domestic violence and taking that time as a community to understand what more we needed to do to see the warning signs and I'm not going to go into it more on the record just to say it really takes all of us and too many people have been too many really good people have been taken from us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any other comments from my colleague?

Well, I just want to again thank you, Ms. Torres, for being here today.

I know, again, you are the Co-Executive Director of Policy at the Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence and your staff and the folks that do this hard work, basically the frontline workers, to make sure that this issue of domestic violence is front and center, that it's not just a woman's issue.

It's actually a societal issue because women and children get hurt first, as we know, when things are violent and unpredictable.

Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, again, for bringing this forward and all my colleagues for voting yes to have their name affixed to the proclamation.

All right, so with that, we're going to move on to public comments.

So at this time, we are going to open the hybrid as we do the public comment period.

My understanding is that we have 14 remote speakers and we have five in-person speakers.

Correct.

I'm double checking the numbers online.

We just gained one person.

I'm going to double check the written public comment as we speak.

OK, so we're going to start with the in-person speakers.

Madam Clerk, will you please go ahead?

And because I think these are some first time callers again, there will be a 10 second notice to wrap up your comments.

And I hate to have to cut you off, but two minutes and you get a 10 second warning.

Madam Clerk, can you go ahead and please do the public comment recording for those watching and those calling it?

Thank you.

I'm sorry, it's not playing for me.

I'll keep working on that.

Well, I don't want to make you work on it too long because the rules are pretty basic.

I can pretty much say them, but it's always nice to hear it again.

But if you can't get it going, I can go ahead and share what we need to say.

Thank you.

I apologize for that.

No problem.

I just love hearing Sharon's voice every time we do this Sharon Williams, who's actually the now our voice of Seattle.

So the public comment rules are pretty straightforward.

Everybody should know by now we ask that you allow people an opportunity to voice their opinion that we show respect that you speak to the items on the agenda.

that there are no personal attacks on any individual, including council members.

You're free to disagree, but not personal attacks based on anyone's race, ethnicity, any of those issues, basically all the rules that we learned in kindergarten.

Just be kind, be nice and listen.

And if you don't agree, that's OK.

You'll have your chance to say why you disagree.

So with that, besides the 10 second warning, so we don't have to cut you off, I think we all know what the rules are.

So with that, madam clerk, I'm going to let you start calling the names of the folks that we have in chambers.

Our 1st speaker is Marguerite Richard.

Good day everyone.

My name is Marguerite Richard, and I'm here, specifically because I was at this rally for the deceased, as far as the woman they got hit by the car with the cop.

And I'm very much concerned that with all the stuff that's been said and done, we're still at square one.

You say, oh, no, we're not.

But yes, you are, because I haven't seen one thing change.

I sat up here and I wrote down some stuff, you'll get it.

We have a police commission, advisory board, inspector general, office of police accountability, Spog and God only knows what else.

And you still haven't been able to fix the problem.

We got three officers right now over in Tacoma over the killing of Manny Ellis.

Irrespective of how it comes out, we still see people protesting in the streets.

And then one lady at the West Precinct said, don't you have a council person that you can talk to?

No.

Don't, what about the ACLU?

Excuse me?

What about the consent decree?

We're in that paperwork where we shouldn't have seen anybody thinking that they could just slip and do what they did and say, oh, we weren't talking in front of the deceased.

And I'm a woman too.

That's the reason why I'm really speaking out, because that's a disgrace to my integrity, that those were men laughing and joking.

They said, no, we weren't making no joke out of that $11,000.

You can't pay me enough for all the infractions that have been committed since the name police.

Now go study that.

Our next speaker is Ryan Donohue.

Hello, and thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Ryan Donahue and I'm the Chief Advocacy Officer at Habitat for Humanity, Seattle, King and Kittitas Counties.

And I'm here today to express our concern with a recent proposal to amend the comprehensive plan to potentially incorporate transportation impact fees.

Our concerns come from a timing, a process and a policy standpoint.

From a timing standpoint, we're concerned that with all eyes on the city budget right now, trying to do this at the same time shortchanges the opportunity for people to give this the level of attention that it deserves.

If transportation impact fees are eventually going to become a thing, it deserves the opportunity for a full and frank discussion, not a side discussion during the budget cycle.

It just makes more sense to have this discussion when it's currently already scheduled for the land use committee at the end of November.

From a process standpoint, we're concerned because this fee has the potential to bring in significant funds on par with MHA.

We support MHA, but the process that MHA went through saw over 20 different hearings and was the result of over a year of debate and happened during the housing boom period.

I'm all for increasing efficiency here at the city of Seattle, but there's a difference between streamlining the process and pushing through a potential fee on housing while everyone is focused on the budget.

Lastly, from a policy standpoint, we're concerned because this is a fee that would be imposed on housing construction during a building slump and a housing crisis.

And the fee wouldn't even be going to the production of more affordable housing like MHA does.

It's one thing to implement a fee on more expensive housing to pay for affordable housing.

Implementing fees on housing to fund transportation projects some of which supposedly have already been allocated funding, only stifles housing production at a time when we desperately need more housing.

We at Habitat understand and respect the need for more transportation funding.

We just believe it is bad timing to do this in the middle of the budget cycle as we are now.

We urge you to delay this and reconsider our transportation revenue strategy at a time where we can actually focus on transportation.

Thank you very much for your time.

Our next speaker is Travis close.

Good afternoon Council, my name is Travis.

Hey, can you hear me.

Is this okay.

Yes.

All right, good afternoon, everyone.

I came here to talk about Resolution 32097, which as currently written would give preference to through traffic in our communities.

I am a resident of District 6, and I live in an apartment building right next to a truck route.

This is due to our zoning, current zoning.

Most of our apartment buildings are only allowed to be built near high traffic arterial roads.

And so I'm very concerned that the bill as currently written would not allow our city to implement the types of safety improvements that are necessary to get us to Vision Zero.

Current language in the resolution calls for giving the Freight Advisory Board essentially veto power over proposed design changes that might decrease the width of these truck routes.

And now SDOT has very lofty goals for improving safety on our streets in the years to come.

And SDOT needs to be able to have the flexibility, complete flexibility to implement any kind of proposed changes that they need to make our streets safer.

So we want to make sure that if we're trying to make our freight more efficient, that we don't do it in a way that hampers safety for everyone else.

And there's a lot of us who see this vision of having very efficient flow of freight and safe streets for everyone.

And I know we can get there.

We just need more time to talk about it and find a resolution.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Meredith Holzheimer.

Hello, my name is Meredith Holzmer, and I'm here to speak in opposition of advancing transportation impact fees today, especially on this very rushed timeline.

There's been no outreach to the businesses and people who will be subject to these fees, which is a stark contrast to the multi-year collaborative process used to develop and adopt the MHA fees a few years ago.

The council's own website on this issue, as of today, lists no public meetings or opportunities for comment, and apparently hasn't been updated since February.

There's no draft ordinance with specific code language to review.

And even the published agenda for this very meeting doesn't make any reference to this issue.

Council isn't even waiting for the pending hearing examiners decision on the SEPA appeal.

The transportation impact fees on this rate sheet are a significant cost to all construction types.

These fees cannot simply be absorbed into the cost of development and will result in an even steeper drop-off of new projects in this city than currently exists.

My company is proposing redevelopment of a vacant site in the Little Saigon neighborhood with 397 apartments and ground floor retail.

It's fully entitled but does not yet have building permits.

We'll pay $9.8 million in MHA fees, almost $25,000 per apartment.

which is known and in our budget, but this project will lose its financing and will not move forward if the transportation impact fee is passed.

It would add $2 million to the cost of the apartments.

Additionally, one of our retail spaces is designed to be a small 1500 square foot restaurant.

The impact fee for this space would be $84,000, which is more than a year's worth of the retail tenants rent.

I also wanted to point out that if our building were a life science or medical office building of the same size, the impact fee would be a whopping $14 million in addition to MHA fees.

These fees are not supportable, should not be rushed through.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kevin Trout.

Hello, hello, hopefully this is coming through.

You catch me a little bit flat footed today.

I was coming in to talk about resolution 32097, got a whole bunch of stuff written out, but now I'm kind of making it up on the fly.

So bear with me as I give hopefully structured and useful public comment in this moment.

These, I really appreciate what I see as the intent behind this resolution.

which is industrial areas are really challenged they have been for a really long time, and yet they are critical to the people areas, and this city.

And so I think that what we can do to be good stewards of these challenging times, and of these areas is absolutely critical.

And I would hope that we could come up with a compromise that addresses the inequity that change has brought, you know, change, change happens, but recent economic times have not been just or fair.

And that's something that I do think that we as a city should be addressing.

However, I see the current language of this resolution and I know it is being taken in for more reconsideration and I do really appreciate that.

But I see the current language of this resolution and it worries me because these areas are changing and we do need to be really good stewards of that.

But prioritizing, having language that prioritizes the things such as through traffic, I think misses the larger impact and goal of what this is trying to be.

And so I really appreciate the fact that we are taking some time to slow down and reconsider this.

because I do think that it is possible to have a good compromise that works for everybody.

I'll say a wild thing, which is I really wish we had like dedicated freight lanes and dedicated transit lanes, right?

And that we could do stuff that would prioritize the movement of that and the movement of people in safe ways at the same time.

Thank you so much.

Our next in-person speaker is Laris Erickson.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lars Erickson and excuse me, and on behalf of the nearly 2,400 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber, I urge you to reject transportation impact fees.

Our region is in the midst of a housing crisis.

Now is not the time to add costs to housing development.

New housing permit intakes are dropping at an alarming rate and impact fees would further deter new housing development, deepening the crisis.

Every new unit has an impact, and to ensure new housing is affordable, we know more must be built.

The Seattle business community actively supports policies that lead to more housing, make it less expensive, and serve those who need it the most.

For those reasons, we ask you to halt further consideration of transportation impact fees.

It's counterproductive and sends the wrong signal.

Amending the comp plan to include transportation impact fees clearly creates a bias towards eventual adoption.

In fact, it would eventually be required to remain compliant.

Let's focus on policies that close the housing gap.

Please reject the introduction of transportation impact fees today.

Thank you.

That was our last in-person speaker.

We'll now move on to remote speakers.

Our first remote speaker is Reza Marashi.

Can folks hear me okay?

Yes.

I'm just going to go ahead.

Oh, you can.

Okay, fantastic.

Thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and go out.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Reza Marashi, and I'm director of government affairs for Kilroy Realty Corporation.

I'm here today to speak in opposition to advancing transportation impact fees on this very short timeline.

Transportation impact fees are a significant new cost to all construction types, especially new housing.

And as others have noted today, we are in a housing crisis.

According to the fee schedule attached to this legislation, impact fees would add an additional $4,800 to $6,600 per unit to a mid-rise building.

A low-rise building gets more than $8,000 per unit added.

We cannot continue to tax the product we are trying to create more of.

New apartment applications are down nearly 90% from 2020, and this new lack of supply will drive up costs, and then this impact fee would be added as a new fee for renters, which will greatly exacerbate our affordability crisis.

A recent study by the University of California, Berkeley, found that development fees, like transportation impact fees, substantially increase the cost of housing, amounting to anywhere between 6% to 18% of the median home price, depending on location.

And they can reduce housing affordability and even hinder housing production.

In closing, I ask that you not support moving transportation impact fees to the introductory and referral calendar for a full council vote.

This is the wrong approach at the wrong time.

Thank you for your consideration today.

Our next remote speaker is Kyle Jacobson.

Hello.

Thank you.

I'd like to speak on Resolution 32097. The status quo on our streets should be considered radical.

In this status quo, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers are killed and injured by motorists at rates that should shame us deeply.

Further people, particularly in historically and presently disadvantaged communities of color, are harmed by tailpipe emissions and tire particulates.

And our continued reliance on automobiles is dooming us to a spiraling climate catastrophe.

Meanwhile, many of our most important public spaces, such as our waterfront, Pike Place, and Lake Washington Boulevard, Prioritize the same two-ton machines that are causing so much harm.

We know the solutions to all these problems.

They involve prioritizing moving people in safe, carbon-minimizing ways.

They involve reconfiguring our streets.

They necessarily involve inconveniencing drivers and may come at some cost to the movement of freight.

So be it.

Resolution 32097 will further entrench a deadly status quo and hamper changes to our streets that should be understood as imperative for all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jonathan Menni.

Jonathan, I see you are muted.

If you can press star six, please.

Sorry.

Hi there.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Great.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jonathan Mannheim, and I'm also here to speak in opposition to advancing the transportation impact fees.

As we all know, we have a housing crisis, and due to the more recent combination of increasing labor and material costs in the wake of COVID, increasing permit review timelines, and certainly increasing interest rates, the cost to deliver housing has never been higher.

We need to reduce costs for new housing if we want to solve this problem, not increase them.

Both the fee proposal on the project list are from 2017, 2018. Some of the projects on the list have already been built or funded from other sources.

And passing this outdated list this year means that the city has to go back again next year and pass another comprehensive plan amendment to update the project list.

Again, this seems rushed for no other reason than some would like to get this done before they leave office.

Next year, the city will place a new transportation levy before voters to renew the 2015 levy that allocated about $930 million over nine years.

It is very likely this new levy would top a billion dollars in taxpayer funds.

It feels reasonable that we could roll these additional projects into this new levy instead of creating a new tax that will only continue to impact our housing crisis, pandemic recovery, and hurt small businesses and send, frankly, new investment to the east side.

In closing, we ask that you not support moving transportation impact fees to the introductory and referral calendar for a full council vote.

Feels like this is the wrong approach at the wrong time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marty Goodman.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Marty Goodman and I'm also here to speak in opposition to the advancing the transportation impact fees.

I work with a multifamily developer and I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of adding impact fees to projects during the current economic climate.

It's extremely difficult to finance new projects with all time high costs, interest rates that have more than doubled and significant impact fees we already paid at the city.

Each of our projects pays millions of dollars to the Department of Housing for MHA fees and usually provides 20% workforce housing using the MFTE program.

Multifamily projects are currently at the tipping point and additional fees will postpone or cancel many much needed housing projects.

Then you don't get the transportation impact fees and you also don't get the MHA fees or the workforce housing either.

It's not a good time to be rushing this through without understanding the true impact of impact fees.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

Our next speaker is Abigail DeWies.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Wonderful.

Hi, my name is Abby DeWeese, and I'm speaking today on behalf of NAOF Washington State, our state's commercial real estate association.

We're speaking today in strident opposition to advancing the comprehensive plan amendment for transportation impact fees to the full council.

We're deeply concerned about the rushed and unusual process around this important policy.

The comprehensive plan amendments on this issue have been noticed for hearing at the Land Use Committee already on two occasions.

The public is expecting a hearing at that committee, which is typical for comprehensive plan amendments.

Circumventing the typical process and rushing deliberation during budget session for an issue of this import undermines and undervalues public input and trust.

The comprehensive plan amendments are not a procedural step.

They set the framework for city policy and the law demands future city policy is consistent with the plan.

The substantive decision to support or oppose transportation impact fees is at stake now, not at a future point.

The comprehensive plan amendment adopts a project list that sets the maximum fees.

This is a substantive and foundational part of the fee framework.

It is inappropriate to use a stale list prepared by Council Member O'Brien without any equity analysis, outreach, or meaningful discussion.

Beyond these process concerns, transportation impact fees are not the right answer for our city.

Amidst a housing crisis, now is not the time to pile on.

Nothing pencils right now and the city should be trying to fix the problem, not make it worse.

The market factors will further constrain the supply of housing and adding thousands of dollars of additional fees will only result in less affordability.

It's a bad idea being implemented on a rush timeframe.

We implore you to take the time of policy choice of this magnitude demand and to vote against advancing the comprehensive plan amendment to the full council.

Our next speaker is Tasha Weiss.

Good afternoon and thank you, council members.

I'm commenting on agenda item E regarding the opposition of impact fees.

My name is Tasha Weiss and I'm speaking today both as a resident of Seattle and as the housing policy specialist of Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish counties.

MBACS is deeply concerned about the proposal to consider the implementation of transportation impact fees.

And while we understand the importance of funding critical infrastructure projects we believe this is a vital moment where we should avoid further burdening the construction industry stifling economic growth and deepening our housing affordability crisis.

It's also crucial to note that Seattle's developer fees are already surpassed those in neighboring cities.

We urge the council to pursue alternative funding mechanisms while supporting attainable housing.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matt Hutchins.

Hi, my name is Matt Hutchins.

I question whether resolution 32097 is necessary at all.

We just spent years rewriting the maritime and industrial strategy and the policies that were adopted with broad consensus among property owners, the port, businesses, planners, citizens, and everyone on this council reflect a consensus policy that everyone supports.

The bedrock of that policy was code reform that put the protection of mix from intrusion from other uses as a paramount need for the zoning there.

At the same time, policy also modernizes the code to reflect the changing use of industrial lands.

It's more than just rail yards, fisheries, and trucking.

It's now R&D, breweries, logistics, tech, where jobs are today and in the future.

A lot of light rail, and that's gonna mean changes to our right-of-way.

In the fresh new transportation plan, even in the rapid progress alternative, the miles of truck streets and freight quarters does not change.

It reflects the SDOT's staunch commitment to maintaining freight mobility.

All these things show how committed we are to freight mobility in the first place.

We don't need the freight board to be able to supersede the Maritime and Industrial Strategy or the Seattle Transportation Plan or other land use changes just so that they can protect truck routes.

The resolution also calls for annual reports, quaternional reports, who's going to prepare these, how much will that cost, who's going to read these, is there any value there?

The resolution calls for additional site development impact analysis for uses that were already studied under the industrial maritime strategy are now allowed and would be reviewed part of a master use anyway.

In the end, I'm not sure what you think, sir.

With this resolution, you would be putting incumbent free interest paramount as opposed to balancing moving goods and people.

Our next speaker is Chris Gergich.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chris Gergich and I'm the co-chair of the Pedestrian Advisory Board and I'm here today to urge the council not to endorse resolution 32097 because This resolution will continue the harm our transportation system is doing to pedestrians by restricting our ability to reduce lanes or lane width on major truck routes.

But more than 50% of all of our pedestrian fatalities occur on those major truck routes.

Narrowing vehicle space allows us to provide separated and protected pedestrian and bicycle space, and it is the best tool we have to improve their safety.

The resolution's goal is to preserve vehicle throughput on these routes, and that does not align with our city's Vision Zero goals or the goals that are included now in our draft STP.

The resolution gives the modal boards, specifically the freight board, new power and responsibility related to projects that would reduce lane width and number, but only focuses on those projects.

The Pedestrian Modal Advisory Board has not had the time to discuss this, as a board and has requested that this be delayed until it's a resolution author or a member of their staff can coordinate with the boards that we can provide constructive feedback.

But this has not been done.

Rushing this resolution to council undermines our ability to fulfill the role that we have been appointed to fulfill.

There are solutions to ensure that the movement of goods is not overlooked in our project planning and design efforts, but it should not be moved forward at the cost of pedestrian lives.

Because this resolution has been rushed and for the potential harm to pedestrians by creating barriers to proven solutions, it would be irresponsible for the council to endorse it.

Please vote no on resolution 32097.

Our next speaker is Deb Barker.

Hi, thank you so much for the time to speak.

My name is Deb Barker.

I urge the city council to amend the IRC and include a timely public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment to consider transportation impact fees.

Having this public hearing does not adversely impact any ongoing or upcoming process that Seattle has before.

Indeed, many of the city council and the public at large can process and evaluate several different topics at one time.

But what is adversely impacted right now is the ability of the city of Seattle to fund transportation needs.

I am not a paid developer representative urging you to make these heavy transportation impact fees go away.

And I am not before you whining that my bottom line is awfully impacted by these abhorrent sale transportation impact fees.

No, council members, I'm a private citizen.

I support transportation impact fees.

And so does every other municipality that has adopted them.

Seattle hasn't.

We're the last one standing.

I suggest to the developer that if your bottom line can't handle a TIF then you need to adjust your take home pay.

Personally I'm really sick and tired of this Seattle based TIF bashing.

Seattle has a way to fund transportation impacts through transportation impact fees.

Please amend the IRC.

Set a public hearing.

Thank you for your time.

The next speaker is Jesse Simpson.

Hi, thanks for allowing me to testify.

Council members, I'm Jesse Simpson, Government Relations and Policy Manager for the Housing Development Consortium.

We represent over 200 members, including all the major non-profit affordable housing developers, as well as service providers, architects, contractors, attorneys, and more, working to ensure that all people can live in safe, healthy, and affordable homes.

I wanted to express our concern with the proposal to amend the comprehensive plan to potentially incorporate transportation impact fees.

From a policy standpoint, transportation impact fees threaten to worsen our existing housing crisis.

At this moment, housing developments are facing considerable headwinds to pencil, with high interest rates and inflated construction costs.

And this challenging climate for housing creation is expected to continue for some time.

Seeing an additional fee on housing now could limit new housing when we already have a housing shortage.

Given the mandatory housing affordability program, additional slowdowns in private development activity will directly reduce the funding available for new affordable housing.

Discouraging private projects has real consequences for affordable housing, even if affordable housing projects are exempted from future impact fees.

And finally, a lot of people have spoken to it, but from a policy and from a process standpoint, accelerating the implementation of impact fees by bringing it further to the council calendar really threatens this inclusive and open engagement process.

There's already a public hearing set for November 29th in the Land Use Committee.

Moving that hearing forward rushes a major policy decision without adequate public engagement or understanding of the trade-off.

I urge you to not move that forward and thanks for the opportunity.

The next speaker is San Petra.

Hello?

Hello.

Yes, this is San Petera.

My comment is about resolution 32097. I believe safety should always be the top priority on any street in the city.

This resolution would allow for through traffic to be prioritized above safety on the most dangerous roads in the city.

The so-called the truck streets in the resolution are used by everyone for all purposes.

They're not just truck streets.

So including, you know, people modeling vehicles.

And this resolution would only make them more dangerous by explicitly opposing safety measures like traffic calming and accessibility measures like curb cuts.

It would give power to the Freight Advisory Board, as well as other individuals, to prevent any reasonable safety improvement on major streets.

Important safety projects, like on West Marginal Way, I believe, have already been killed this way, and this is only going to make that happen more often.

So please kill this resolution.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Katie Wilson.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Go ahead.

Oh, hi.

Okay.

Sorry.

Hi, so this is Katie Wilson speaking on behalf of the Transit Riders Union.

We support advancing the comprehensive plan amendment on impact fees to the full council.

We understand that this action would not create an impact fee program, but it would keep the possibility open to create such a program in the future, for example, as part of next year's transportation levy.

This would happen with plenty of public engagement.

I want to be clear that we do not unconditionally support an impact fee program.

We think that such a program would need to be carefully designed so as not to deter the development of new housing.

Um, and we would not support a program that set fees at a level that would contribute to perpetuating the housing shortage.

At the same time, we think it's appropriate to require private developers to mitigate the social and environmental costs of their profit-making activities, and impact fees are one way to do that.

Um, so we urge the Council to keep transportation impact fees on the table as a funding source for multimodal transportation projects that center people walking, rolling, biking, and riding transit, um, by at least referring this to the full council for a proper discussion.

And then finally, I'll also just say that we share the concerns of other speakers on the freight resolution 32097. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Riley Avron.

Hi, council members.

My name is Riley Avron.

I'm a constituent of Council Member Herbold and I'm quite disappointed with the transportation impact fees that she supports.

Others have talked at length about process concerns, so I'll be brief.

This is a bad idea now, and it would remain a bad idea after a year of community engagement.

Each of you has surely said much about the need for more housing affordability, but further taxing housing will have the opposite effect.

Respectfully, you shouldn't tax the production of things for which you have a desperate need.

Please reject transportation impact fees outright, or if you won't do that, wield the famed Seattle process for good just this once and use it to smother the fee proposal on red tape.

I also want to speak in opposition to Resolution 32097, I live right on a major truck street in district one, and it is an unsafe unpleasant place to be.

I don't want to add yet another veto point into the already painful process by which I thought maybe eventually could add some safety improvements.

So please reject this resolution.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker is Nick Jekyll.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Nick Jacklin.

I'm representing the Downtown Seattle Association, and my comments are in opposition to the effort to rush consideration of transportation impact fees.

An inclusive and open engagement process is crucial to the city's business, especially regarding an issue as important as this.

The Land Use Committee is scheduled to take on this matter at the end of November, and pushing this bill forward now would rush a significant policy decision without allowing sufficient public engagement or understanding of the policy tradeoff.

And this change could lead to confusion.

As you've heard in this room already, and I will also underscore, stakeholders are actively preparing for that November 23rd meeting, and it would limit their good work and the opportunities for critical public input.

We urge the City Council to delay the current consideration of transportation impact fees and to synchronize work on a new, broader transportation revenue strategy, timed with the move to Seattle Levy.

Again, this work should not be rushed, as it must build in thoughtful engagement with a broad group of stakeholders, advocates, and community members to consider all of our transportation funding options and project priorities alongside clearly defined trade-offs.

From a policy perspective, we're aware that impact fees have been a tool used by other municipalities to fund new initiatives in smaller, suburban, single-family-oriented cities.

However, research shows that these fees are often ill-suited to fit the complex needs of urban development.

With a high number of potential negative consequences to the creation of affordable and market-grade housing, now is not the time to consider adding new fees to housing in Seattle.

Thank you for your consideration and efforts to ensure that downtown's recovery is a sustainable one, centered around the vision that our urban core must be safe, healthy, and vibrant for all.

Thank you.

Council President, that concludes the in-person and remote public comment speakers.

Great.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Thank you for those folks that called in and thank you for the individuals that came into chambers to provide public comment.

So with that, public comment is now ended, is now closed.

That's the correct word to use.

We move on into our agenda.

So we've got a couple of matters coming up here.

Moving on to the adoption of the introduction and referral calendar.

I move to adopt the introduction and referral calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the introduction referral calendar.

Are there any comments?

Starting with Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Councilors Herbold and Benson.

Do you want to go first?

Well, that's what I thought, but it would make sense.

I think they are going first.

Here you go.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss, very much.

I understand that Councilor Herbold will tee us up.

you councilmember Strauss.

I believe you have a walk-on as well.

Yeah but his is after yours.

You um the first.

I'm sorry madam president I was uh following what I understood your prompt to be and what I understood prior to the meeting the order to be.

Oh let me apologize too.

The um we have two walk-ons and the first one is um by councilmember Herbold and councilmember Lewis I'm sorry councilmember Peterson and then we have a second walk-on which is Council Member Strauss regarding the Ballard Railroad issue.

So we were going to start with the Land Use Council Bill 120635, which I understand that you would be speaking to it as well as a few of your colleagues.

So thank you so much.

Madam President, thank you.

Colleagues, pursuant to Section 3A2 of our City Council rules, I move to amend the introduction and referral calendar to re-refer Council Bill 120635 from the Land Use Committee to the full Council.

Second.

All right, Council Member Herbold.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to keep track here.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the introduction referral calendar by re-referring Council Bill 120635 from the Land Use Committee to the full City Council.

So at this point, Council Member Herbold, I understand you have some comments on this amendment to the introduction referral calendar.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I do.

As you said, the motion is to re-refer Council Bill 120635 from the Land Use Committee to the full Council.

For purposes of clarity, I first want to address much of the public comment we heard.

Council Bill 120635 does not establish a transportation impact fee program.

What it would do is amend the transportation element of the comprehensive plan to allow for impact fees in the future if the council in the future created such a program by separate legislation.

Any proposal to create an impact fee program would need to be a separate future action.

And much of the testimony I heard today about an impact fee program would be well-placed to hear in the deliberation of an impact fee program, which again, this is not.

There's no specific impact fee proposal.

The impact fee study included a figure for purposes of a study.

It is not a proposal.

It is the maximum amount a future impact fee could charge.

If somebody is conveying information that it is important to testify about this procedural amendment to the introduction and referral calendar, that information is not accurate.

Again, we are not voting on an impact fee program.

We're not voting on the amendment.

the comp plan amendment that would make it possible to, in the future, discuss impact feed.

We are only voting on an amendment to re-refer a piece of legislation to the budget committee.

And the reason for that is because legally, a public hearing must take place in order for the council to vote on the bill.

That's another thing I heard a lot of people talking about.

is wanting additional public process.

Again, this public hearing that has been scheduled is not a public hearing on the contours of an impact fee program.

It is a public hearing, though, to begin the discussion and begin the discussion by amending the comp plan.

The procedural vote would allow for the public hearing and allow for future consideration of the amendment to the comprehensive plan this year.

Support for this motion today does not necessarily assume support for the council bill.

State law allows the comp plan to be amended only twice a year.

once in the annual process, and secondly, the second option that is named by state law is during the budget process.

The annual comp plan amendment process has passed, and folks may recall that council members during that annual comp plan process agreed on the chair's request to not consider any comp plan amendments other than those related to the industrial lands amendment.

So there were several possible comp plan amendments that were docketed for the annual process this year.

We all deferred to the Land Use Committee's preference and did not discuss those amendments because of the understandable and desirable need to focus on the industrial lands amendments.

But again, that creates a situation where the only other time that state law permits us to vote on the comp plan is during the budget process.

There had been a committee meeting for a public hearing scheduled by the land use chair.

And that public hearing was noticed in the, the DJC, the city's paper of record, the daily journal of commerce.

But in August, the chair canceled that public hearing.

This means again during the budget process consistent with state law is the only time that we can hear this amendment.

In order to act on the bill this year, the council must vote by November 21st, along with the passage of the budget.

The public hearing must take place before the council can vote.

Council President Warris has very helpfully issued another notice to the Daily Journal of Commerce for the 30-day public hearing notice for the full council meeting on November 7th as legally required.

I am aware that the chair is seeking to reschedule that hearing for November 29th.

But again, that date would be too late for consideration of the legislation this year during the budget process.

So that's just an overview of what's been going on this year in our efforts to consider this comp plan amendment.

I want to give some of the historical background.

In late 2014, the city authorized development of a proposal for parks and transportation impact fees with an additional assessment conducted for education in partnership with the Seattle Public Schools.

In late 2014, the council adopted a budget action dedicating $300,000 for evaluation of transportation impact fees.

Council budget action of $300,000, resources that have been spent on this effort, was sponsored by council members Bagshaw, Burgess, and Rasmussen.

In 2015, the executive response recommended a work program for development of an impact fee for parks and transportation, and also exploration with the Seattle School District of a program for public schools.

that work concluded in 2016, leading to a first draft amendment later that year.

In 2017, the council docketed consideration of comprehensive plan amendments for impact fees.

When I say docketed consideration of transportation impact fees, I mean we voted.

We voted to say that we would consider the amendment to the comp plan.

We voted on a resolution that listed all of the comprehensive plan amendments that we were planning to vote on.

In 2017, the council made a commitment that the city would consider, including in the comprehensive plan, a list of priority transit, pedestrian and bike safety and bridge projects that we could consider funding with a transportation impact fee if legislation implementing that program was adopted later.

In 2018, a rate study and SEPA threshold determination were issued.

The SEPA determination was appealed to the hearing examiner who remanded the determination to the council in October 19th.

The council restated the commitment to the public by passing additional resolutions in each 2020, 2021, and 2022. So we have voted every year since 2017 to say that we are going to vote on these amendments.

It is an important objective of mine to vote and keep our commitment that we've made to vote on these amendments.

Further, the work to date was made possible by a very substantial institutional investment from the city of Seattle.

not only the funding that I mentioned earlier for the evaluation, the $300,000 for evaluation of impact fees, but there was a separate subsequent consultant study that the city funded and our own council central staff has now spent dozens of hours testifying as an expert witness representing the city position opposing two separate appeals now.

Keto Freeman has testified on the city's behalf on two separate appeals.

This year, Keto Freeman and Calvin Chow has likewise participated as the city's witness in support of the city's position to allow the vote on the comp plan amendment.

That's what I've got for now, Madam Chair.

I might want some closing comments dependent on what I hear from my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I apologize.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I was pulling up the rest of the calendar.

So the floor is open now for some other folks to speak.

I see Council Member Peterson, you have your hand up.

Thank you President Juarez.

Thank you.

And thanks Councilmember Herbold.

I'm proud to stand with you to support this procedural motion so that we can have a public hearing.

It's a multi-step process and like you said this is not about the merits of a policy that could happen in the future but really just to set up a public hearing.

Because state law has certain constraints on how and when we can have those public hearings and we heard this afternoon from several paid lobbyists who are apparently worried about paying a fee to help the city fund important transportation safety projects.

even though nonprofits would be exempted by any such fee.

We'll see how much influence and sway those lobbyists have with today's procedural vote.

But today the lobbyists have spoken, so all the more reason to have a public hearing on November 7, so that we can hear from the general public as well.

This vote would simply enable a public hearing, and who here today is afraid of a public hearing?

So we're not here to debate the merits of the two-page bill because the motion before us is simply procedural motion.

So I just hope that we can proceed with this.

We thought we had something set up earlier this year, but that fell through.

So this is the important procedural vote to enable a public hearing for the general public.

Thank you.

And with that, I see Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Strauss, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, colleagues.

I just will state that the Land Use Committee meeting in September, I committed to having a public hearing at the next available opportunity.

Since then, I publicly noticed a 30 day notice to have a public hearing at the November 29th Land Use Committee.

That is the next opportunity within our policy committee to have this public hearing.

I do believe that impact fees need to be considered as we review the next transportation levy.

Having a public hearing on the 29th sets us up to do so.

Re-referring the bill today will take a policy committee discussion to full council and turn a full council meeting into a committee meeting.

During our September land use meeting, we had scheduled a public hearing for the transportation impact fees.

And I did cancel the public hearing because the hearing examiner had not finalized their decision.

It is important that we have the hearing examiner's final decision in public view with enough time to analyze and understand it before the public hearing of record is held on this item.

at that time that we did not have a formal public hearing.

We did have public comment and it was split.

There was more than just as one of my colleagues just mentioned paid lobbyists.

There were a lot of different voices and it really spoke to the importance of hearing the hearing examiner's final decision because the hearing examiner, as Council Member Herbold noted, has heard from folks on central staff, has heard from all of the parties and to have the public hearing of record before that notice is made public does us a disservice.

I'll get to why that is in just a minute.

So again, the public hearing, the official public hearing on transportation impact fees has been noticed, has been scheduled for November 29th.

I'm in favor of having this public hearing, which is why I scheduled it.

As chair of the committee, I do believe we need the time to review and understand the legislation before amending the comp plan.

Speaking with Council Member Peterson, and he said it clearly today, it was indicated that the November 29th public hearing was not acceptable because of the desire to vote on the comp plan amendment on November 21st, only six weeks from now.

If we are in fact just voting procedurally and not on amending the comp plan, then the publicly noticed public hearing on November 29th satisfies our needs.

The budget chair has indicated we do not have the capacity to be briefed and review this policy during the budget season.

And I agree with this assessment as we need to have a formal briefing once the hearing examiner decision is final.

This is a big piece of legislation.

There are a lot of different viewpoints, as we heard in the public comment during our land use committee, which was more varied than what we had today, colleagues.

But just to give reference, we had two really big pieces of legislation in the land use committee this year.

We had the tree ordinance, the tree protection ordinance, and maritime industrial zoning changes.

The tree by just for some history here, the tree ordinance received quarterly updates in the Land Use Committee for the past four years and received seven committee meetings in the Land Use Committee alone.

This legislation still needs work despite having the amount of time dedicated to it.

As well, we've already started the resolution which the Land Use Committee will pass in December that will outline the next steps for updating and improving the tree protection ordinance.

The maritime and industrial zoning changes received four and a half, four plus years of facilitated stakeholder workshops, additional facilitation from the mayor's office and for meetings in the land use committee.

One of the hanging elements of passing the zoning changes in the maritime and industrial zones is the transportation.

is the industrial transportation resolution.

You have heard today that it needs more work and we are taking additional time to make sure that that resolution achieves both goals, which is moving freight and keeping everyone safe.

And so I share this background because these two pieces of legislation are in fact smaller than transportation impact fees and have received substantial more time and are still not perfect.

In contrast, the transportation impact fees have been heard twice, once in the transportation committee and once in land use, both briefings before the hearing examiner's final decision.

the hearing examiner has still not made a final determination.

And we expect this to be done by the end of the month.

We expected the decision to be done in September, which is why I scheduled the public hearing then.

And with it not being completed, we moved it.

It's important that we fully understand the policy before voting on it.

And, um, Another example, just from this year, a bill was sent that should have gone to the Land Use Committee and was sent instead to full council.

We received information from departments that the legislation was cut and dry and that it was important to move forward quickly.

We passed the legislation on an emergency basis without having a public hearing first.

Once we held the public hearing, we received important information.

This law just last week was struck down in the court.

And that demonstrates the importance of having a public hearing once all of the information is in the public.

I share the story because it is important that we receive the hearing examiner's decision and have the time needed to understand their decision, their determination before receiving the official public hearing that will be held on the record for all future actions.

And again, I do believe that impact fees need to be considered as we review the next transportation levy.

And as the chair of the policy committee that this bill is currently referred to, I believe it is important that we have the time to understand the policy.

And as chair of the committee, I believe that we should have the public hearing at the first opportunity in committee, which is why I publicly noticed this public hearing.

And once I shared that information with colleagues, another public hearing notice was scheduled for full council, even though the bill was not referred to full council.

And so colleagues, I understand the desire to move quickly.

I absolutely understand the desire to move impact fees because we have to consider it with the next transportation levy.

And at this time, I request the decision to leave it in the Land Use Committee for the previously scheduled public hearing on November 29. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, President Juarez.

I will, of course, vote yes to re-refer this legislation, which is legally required to allow the possibility of a vote on big developer impact fees.

As I said, during the September 18 council briefing, when council members Strauss announced, he was unilaterally canceling the public hearing legally required to allow council to vote on big developer impact fees.

The democratic establishment has year after year used backroom maneuvers to prevent developer impact fees from even getting a boat.

For years, they refused to conduct the CPA review and last month when the CPA review was finally complete.

Council Member Strauss unilaterally canceled the legally required public hearing.

If council members do not think big business should have to pay taxes or fees, they should be honest about it and vote it in the open rather than maneuvering to prevent a vote.

In September, we heard the excuse that the public hearing was canceled because the CPAR review was currently being appealed to the hearing examiner.

And we heard this again from Council Member Strauss, which is true, but there is nothing about that that requires the public hearing to be canceled.

When my office prepared legislation legalizing more tiny house villages in Seattle, it faced a SEPA appeal.

And during that appeal, we completed the public hearing so that we would not have to delay the vote after the hearing examiner issued their ruling, which is what we did.

In this case, the public hearing must legally be given a month's prior notice and the hearing must be completed before the council can vote.

And council can only vote when the budget is voted on at the end of November.

So if there is any further delay, it will prevent any vote on this.

Today Council Member Strauss offers a public hearing on November 29th, conveniently one week after the budget vote.

He knows full well that taking any vote on impact fees this year is illegal if the public hearing is after the budget vote.

Make no mistake, any Council Member who maneuvers like this or who votes no on this procedural referral is clearly using what will seem to ordinary people, understandably, like bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and even false claims of greater democracy, as Council Member Strauss has just attempted to do, in order to prevent fees from even being given a vote and are doing the bidding of corporate developers.

And there can be no question about this.

I understand Council Member Strauss.

I understand Council Member Suwamit.

I'll hand you the floor in a moment.

I'm just going to ask that we please not personalize our comments and intentions and integrity of our colleagues.

So go ahead Council Member Suwamit, finish your comments.

I'm sorry, President Juarez.

I hear Council Members lying to the public at all times.

So, you know, so many times, but I don't hear any objection to that.

So instead of objecting to what I'm saying, I think council members should have the courage to at least listen to, you know, face the music for what they're doing.

And there can be no question about this just being a benign technical vote.

In public comment today, we heard representatives of multi-billion dollar development companies, such as Holland Investments, Downtown Seattle Association, and others wax eloquent about how developer impact fees will harm affordable housing.

This is truly Orwellian and disgusting.

These wealthy elites are profiting right now off making housing unaffordable.

And they have the breathtaking audacity to lie by saying that if they have to pay a tiny impact fee to help build city infrastructure, that it will hurt affordable housing.

Big business called allowing a public hearing for this bill, quote, rushing, end quote, this bill, which is frankly hilarious because it has literally been delayed for a decade already.

I will vote yes for referring this public developer impact fees legislation to the city council so that it has the chance for a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Sawant.

Councillor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I think the question in front of us is not necessarily do we want to have a conversation about impact fees.

It's a question about whether or not we want to have a conversation in the midst of the budget discussions that we're embarked on.

We've already embarked on.

We only have a series of about eight weeks to consider the legislation to finalize the 2024 budget.

And I think it's really important just to sort of center this discussion.

We're talking about introduction and referral calendar amendment today and whether or not we're adding something to the agenda for our discussion and deliberation over the next few weeks while we're also trying to take up the budget.

So, I just wanted to offer that as a way to reframe that.

This is not a discussion about the merits pro or con about the impact.

fees legislation and the ongoing conversations that have happened with community over the past several years.

Appreciate the history on that.

I do want to add that I think that there is important context that needs to be discussed and I would very much like to be part of those conversations.

I am a member of the Land Use Committee and really want to dive into the questions that we started to outline in the Land Use Committee a few weeks ago.

I put forward about 20 questions, and we have only received minimal information, not very substantive answers to all of those questions so far.

So there are a handful of policy questions that are outstanding, and I think I could not underscore the importance of getting to those policy questions than Habitat for Humanity.

Habitat for Humanity is one of the people that came and testified today, and I assume that they are paid.

Just like I was a paid lobbyist for the Washington State Labor Council, I was a paid lobbyist for the Children's Alliance.

It is not nefarious to be a paid lobbyist on items when you are representing hundreds of thousands of people who are working one, two, or three jobs.

who don't have the time and capacity to come down and speak to their lawmakers, whether at the local state or the national level.

And Habitat for Humanity, representing the constituents that they work with, both the housing residents that they want to house in their new homes and the process for building affordable housing, raised a number of policy questions.

I think some of those policy questions are really important to get to the bottom of.

Again, I look forward to engaging in this conversation, and I hope that it's as robust as we had when we considered mandatory housing affordability.

I came in at the tail end of those discussions.

There was at least 20 committee meetings that we were a part of, and I know that this is an important conversation and a conversation that we must have, but we also must get right.

The question in front of us is whether or not this gets added to the committee calendar over the next six weeks when we must take up the budget.

And colleagues, I'm going to tee up something, and I know you will all be listening and engaging deeply tomorrow as we have our first of three central staff walkthroughs of issue identification for the proposed budget that the mayor transmitted for 2024. And as you may have heard from central staff, if you've received and reviewed the memo so far, there's about $20 million in changes to the proposal that we codified in the endorsed 2024 budget for next year.

$20 million is a significant change and it's going to require a lot of us engaging closely as we try to make sure that there's a final budget that both reflects the executive and the legislative priorities as we center our discussions on community.

So to me, it's really a question about do we have the capacity to take this on and to get into the questions that were raised by community, including from folks that are working on housing that were illustrated by Habitat for Humanity and many others today.

I do look forward to having that discussion.

I hope that we can have a deliberative discussion about that that will tee us up for the comp plan amendments that will be coming next year.

This is not the last time for us to have these discussions, and I appreciate that there has already been a public notice issued for the last week of November.

Again, I look forward to being part of those discussions as the Land Use Committee member, and hopefully that that can happen immediately after we conclude the budget deliberations, which we are focused on over the next few weeks.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilor Mosqueda.

Before we conclude, this is what I'd like to do, Councilor Herbold.

I'm going to say if would you like to close us out and then I'm going to speak or would you like me to speak or close us out?

But I'm offering you the floor to kind of respond to not only what we heard, which you did obviously very well for a public comment, but some of what the comments that were made from our colleagues or anything else that you would want to add.

And then I can speak after you.

Is that okay?

Madam President, absolutely.

Thank you so much.

All right.

So again, to the fact that there is a public hearing that is scheduled at the end of November, that does not allow for this council to have any discussion or consideration of the amendment.

So to those of my colleagues who are saying that they look forward to discussing the content of the comp plan amendment, a public hearing at the end of November will not allow that.

And there is a public hearing that has been issued.

A notice has been issued in the Daily Journal of Commerce paper record by Council President Juarez for November 7th.

To the concerns about budget, Council Central Staff Director has said, and I'm quoting from her direction, I have let both the Council President and Budget Chair Mosqueda know that central staff is available to support a public hearing on the transportation impact fees comp plan amendment during budget.

When we think about doing anything other than budget during budget, we consider both staff capacity and any nexus to budget.

In this case, limited central staff capacity would be required for the public hearing and the legislation as we have done that work in advance.

And there is a nexus to budget in that these comp plan amendments can only be adopted with the budget at this point in the year.

The position from council central staff is because there is no analysis necessary for passage of this amendment.

The questions that my colleagues have referred to that have been discussed in the land use committee are not questions whose answer will inform the comp plan amendment.

The answers to those questions will inform the council next year, if next year's council decides to take up this issue.

The legislation that we are seeking to re-refer today is nothing more than a couple of attachments, one with a list of projects and the other as the attachment reference to the study.

Here's the entirety of what the bill says.

Section 1, Seattle's comprehensive plan, last amended by Ordinance 1267, 30 is amended as follows.

Attachment A to the transportation element as shown in attachment one to this ordinance, and B, amendments to the transportation appendix as shown in attachment two.

That's it.

That's all this says.

There are no amendments to be made to it.

The attachments that are of discussion are part of the legislation, are what's going through the hearing examiner appeal process.

There is no opportunity to amend the list of projects.

There's no opportunity.

to amend the consultant rate study.

There is no analysis associated with this particular bill.

The analysis in the discussion is all related to the development of a future comp plan under a future piece of legislation.

Again, we can't vote on the amendments until the completion of the appeal.

That is absolutely true.

We cannot vote on the amendment itself until the completion of the appeal.

But there is no requirement to wait for the completion of the appeal to hear from the public in a public hearing.

Council action can clear the way for a future council to decide, as many people we have heard from today are advocating for.

I've heard people say that this is a topic that the next council should take up.

I am not objecting to that.

I am simply advocating for a comp plan amendment that will clear the way and make that possible for the future council.

A letter from Seattle for Everyone suggests an approach to consider transportation impact fees to synchronize with a transportation revenue strategy timed with the Seattle move levy.

A vote in support of this proposal would allow for consideration of transportation impact fees in line with the move Seattle levy.

I agree cost to develop housing should be part of any conversation about any future fee proposal.

Central staff has developed a chart including total cost of housing productions to illustrate that.

I've shared that information with members of the public in my newsletter.

Council Central staff using it as an example for illustrative purposes based on the average transportation impact fee for Western Washington.

But again, this is all discussion that will happen later, looking at the size of the fee, exemptions to the fee, but it's not a conversation that is possible to have until we have this public hearing.

In closing, I just want to say, a couple of years ago, I think it was in 2012, The council had a, a rules update process, where I sponsored and amendment to the council rules that requires.

when a bill sponsor wants to propose a piece of legislation to go directly to full council and skip the committee that that legislation should be heard in, that that has to be done with not just between the sponsor of the bill and the council president, but that has to be done in collaboration and consultation with the committee chair.

And we did that.

I proposed that because I felt that there had been a trend Of bill sponsors who were referring bills directly to full council and I felt that an amendment like this would honor the, the role of the committee chair in a way that made for smoother council operations.

I am disappointed that.

despite the intent of the council rules, that it actually seems to be being used to make it not possible for the two sponsors of this legislation to have their legislation heard this year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold.

Councilor Strauss, you can respond and then I'm going to speak and then we're going to go to a vote.

Thank you Council President and thank you Councilmember Herbold for sharing that information.

I just want to again on the record state everything that I said during our committee meetings I have followed through with.

Our committee meetings in September I stated that we would have a public hearing about this.

Councilmember Herbold you mentioned just a moment ago that this This creates a clear pathway for the future Council to decide and I agree with you and also having a public hearing on the 29th sets us up in the same way.

And the reason it sets us up in that same way is because the amendment to the comp plan and the rate ordinance need to be passed as a package.

And we have that ability to do that next year, ahead of the next move Seattle levy, because I do believe that we need to be thinking about transportation impact these in how we offset property taxes with that next levy.

You did mention that it is not required to have the hearing examiner's final decision made before having a public hearing.

And in my comments earlier, I shared why it is important to me as the policy chair to have that decision not only be finalized, but enough time for even me as the policy chair to be able to read it and fully understand it.

And I know that we have a difference of opinion about what does procedural vote mean today.

But I do just also want to recognize all the really hard work that you've put into this.

And it is for the next council to decide.

And I'm looking forward to that conversation.

Are you done, Council Member Stroud?

Yes, sorry.

Yes, Council President, I am complete.

Well, before I get into my statement here that I've listened to both sides, two things.

This is why we don't like things like this to come to full council, because it turns into a committee hearing.

So I'm going to put that on the record.

But there's an old saying that a problem well stated is a problem have solved.

And I think Council Member Mosqueda and Council Member Herbold really teed that up for us and exactly what we're voting on today, that we're not establishing transportation impact fees.

And I apologize to the public if that is what has gotten out there.

As you heard, we did set a public hearing for November 7th.

And also, the amendment is asking that the full council vote along with the budget.

That's why Council Member Mosqueda is concerned.

about transportation impact fees on November 21st.

Between 11-7 and 11-21 is six weeks.

Today's October 10th, so I don't know how many weeks that completely adds up to.

Is that eight weeks, 10?

As a rule, my responsibility as council president is to make sure that the rules are followed with minimal exceptions, that we don't turn full council meetings into committee meetings, and that committees are created for a reason.

We have 9 standing committees.

Those committees have subject matter expertise.

have an opportunity for discussion and debate.

We can openly work for consensus, make changes, make better laws, inform the public of how we're getting where we're getting.

Councilor Herbold hit on an important point.

I am not a fan of bypassing a committee, but I also know that if people work hard to get a committee chair, to try to understand that these are important issues that need to be raised and can't get beyond the committee chair, that that's a problem.

Doesn't happen a lot, but it can be a problem.

So what's being asked of us today is that on November 21st, that all my colleagues will have to vote on, and between now and then, 21st, transportation impact fees with the work that central staff has already done, which puts extra responsibilities obviously on my colleagues during budget, central staff, which has already done a lot, and the clerks, and again, as I said, during the budget cycle.

We do have two opportunities here.

We have the November 7th public hearing to hear more about what we heard today, And people have more information, there'll be more information on the agenda.

I can't imagine kill and our friends and central staff doing more work than they've already done because they have done a lot.

And then by November 21st, colleagues can vote.

Yes, or no, based on all the information that they have.

In conjunction with working on the budget matters, I do view this as a procedural amendment.

And because we are under the constraints, the legal constraints of state law.

And that is why I said, yes, let's go ahead and set up a public hearing date on November 7th.

We're not voting on transportation impact fees.

I don't know how that rumor got out there, but as usual, sometimes things get out there and they're just not true.

I understand the concerns of bypassing the committee, particularly land use, and bringing this to full council because I always want to defer to the chair of a particular committee because they're the ones that are working on these issues all year round, and I do not sit on the land use committee.

I want to thank Council Member Herbold.

I appreciate you bringing the chronology And the history of transportation impact fees, and the resources that the city has contributed for the last 6 years to understanding this issue, the 300,000 dollar costs that we have put in the constituent, I'm sorry, the consultant study the evaluation all the time that Ketel and Calvin.

have put in central staff on this matter.

It's like we kind of briefed it.

We get it.

It's been around.

It just wasn't teed up before budget.

As you all know, I am kind of a more stern about, I like to start with facts that we all agree on and some clarity and legislative history before making decisions and particularly for making exceptions to rules.

My understanding is that, and I understand Council Member Strauss's position, and I also understand Council Member Herbold's position.

The hearing examiner decision is not dispositive of whether we have a public hearing or a vote on 1121. We can do that without the hearing.

Yes, would it be nice if we had it ahead of time so we could head off an appeal that happened in the Flowers decision?

Absolutely, but we don't have that.

So I understand why this is being brought to us today, but I again want to state that I wanted to work with the land use chair and council member herbal and council member.

Peterson to go ahead and set up a public hearing because and allow them the opportunity to walk on.

An amendment an amendment to the IRC that this gets referred to full council and between today, October 10th and 1121, then Seattle City Council will have an opportunity with full vetting and discussion and debate.

about transportation impact fees.

I also had an opportunity, and I want to thank central staff for this, and my staff for providing, and Councilor Herbold correct me if I'm wrong, the list of proposed, if indeed there was ever a change, what type of projects would be available?

They are not projects set in stone.

These were listed projects that span across the city.

I'm not going to go into the integrity of my colleagues about anyone lying or not being truthful, because I know all of you truly believe that you're doing the best you can do, not only for your district, but for the city of Seattle.

I know that Council Member Strauss opposes this amendment, and I understand why.

This is in his committee, but I do understand that having a public hearing on November 29th is too late.

And for that reason, I will be voting yes.

So with that, Madam Clerk, will you call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

No.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

No.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Council President Juarez.

Yes.

Five in favor, four opposed.

So the motion carries.

And Council Bill 120635 is referred to the City Council.

All right, let's move on.

regarding the introduction referral calendar.

I have a question, Madam President.

Yes.

Yes, Council Member Mosqueda.

When is this public hearing supposedly going to be held on November 7th, given that we have ongoing budget deliberations that day?

My understanding is going to be held during full council, which is on a Tuesday.

All right.

Thanks.

Let's see.

Wait, wait, wait.

Let me double check.

11-7.

Yep.

Can I just say one more thing?

We got more time to do this, to work on this.

So this isn't the end of it.

I always just get concerned when people hear something.

And sometimes when something, as they say, misrepresentation goes around the world twice before the truth actually gets out there.

We're not voting on that today.

We voted on the amendment.

Amendment passed.

We're going to move forward between now, which is October 10th, and now to November 21st, we got a lot of time.

All right.

So we are done with that.

And now we're moving on to the second walk-on item on the introduction and referral calendar.

Can I just ask one question?

Oh, yes.

Go ahead, Councilor Nelson.

I'm just confused because you said it was going to be referred to the full council, which is what I thought going into this meeting.

And then it was mentioned that it's going to be referred to the Budget Committee.

So I just wanted some clarification.

No, it's going to the full council.

Thank you.

So, if there is no objection.

The council right?

I got to stop here.

Council member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

Moving on to another walk-on amendment to the Introduction and Referral Calendar.

I move to amend the Introduction and Referral Calendar to introduce TMP 10022, an ordinance authorizing Seattle Department of Transportation Director to approve the transfer of the railway franchise from the Ballard Terminal Railroad Company to the Meeker Southern Railroad.

Second.

All right, it has been moved and seconded and with that, this is the Ballard terminal rail council member Strauss.

This is in your committee and this is in your district and the floor is yours.

Well, it's not in my committee, but I did confer with the committee chair.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson, for giving me your graces on this.

This bill sets us up to be able to pave over one of the most dangerous sections of train tracks in our city under the Ballard Bridge within the missing link of the Berkman Trail.

I hope that we can pass this bill at October 24 meeting.

And to do so I've made several commitments that I will be very frank about.

I've committed to Council President that council members are briefed and comfortable with taking a vote.

committed to not requesting central staff time on this, which is why the mayor's office and SDOT will be available to provide these briefings so that central staff can remain focused on the budget.

And that this is a coming together moment.

Again, parties that typically disagree, we have found agreement.

Here, and we do need to pass this legislation as soon as possible because I'm told that we need to pour the asphalt before the weather changes any further.

So adding this legislation to the IRC today will allow us to pass this legislation.

in two weeks should all colleagues receive the briefing on this legislation from the mayor's office or SDOT.

It is important that we pass this as soon as possible to make biking in our city safer.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

After that, let's open the floor.

Are there any comments on the amendment that Council Member Strauss just introduced to us for the introduction and referral calendar?

All right, I do not see any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment to the introduction referral calendar?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the council bill is added to the introduction referral calendar, is referred to City Council.

Let's see, I think we're good on that.

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

not hearing or seeing an objection, the introduction and referral calendar is adopted as amended.

All right, let's go to the agenda.

We've got a couple of matters here as well.

I move to adopt the proposed agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the proposed agenda.

Are there any comments?

Council Member Strauss?

Yes, Council President, I would like to move.

Sorry, I'm scrolling quickly.

Move to amend.

Move to amend the agenda to remove item 2, resolution 32097. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to amend the agenda by removing item number 2, resolution 32097, Councilor Strauss, as sponsor, you are recognized to address this amendment.

If there's anything else you want to add.

Thank you, Council President.

As we heard in public comment, I think that I'll be honest, I made a mistake and did not upload the most current draft of this resolution to the agenda last week.

This resolution has been worked on in public since July and It is all, it is about the areas that are changing in our city I agree with Kevin that throughput is not Kevin who spoke at public comment is not the goal.

The goal here is to keep freight moving through a chain through changing zoning, and most importantly it is done with Vision Zero implemented.

I also agree with Travis we can do both have freight moving and keeping people safe.

So in this substitute bill that will be attached to the agenda to legislature for everyone to see, throughput has been removed, bike ped boards are included every time the freight board is referenced, and we also want the bike and ped boards to be able to provide feedback, the ped board meets tomorrow, which is why I'm asking to delay this resolution until we can receive this feedback and that we have consensus about this resolution.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Are there any other comments on Councilmember Strauss's amendment to remove item number two from today's agenda?

Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

I definitely support Council Member Straus' motion to delay.

Colleagues will probably have seen that this afternoon my office submitted an amendment, worked on with Safe Street advocates to make some changes to the resolution to reflect the vision of putting safety first.

My understanding from talking to Councilmember Strauss is the stakeholdering work with the various commissions and with the community will adopt similar changes.

Appreciate Councilmember Strauss taking a little bit more time with this and incorporating that feedback and look forward to supporting a final resolution that reflects those core values of safety.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

And that's what we call teamwork, folks.

Anyway, so with that, Council Member Strauss, is there anything you want to say before we move to the vote?

No, thank you, Council President.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment to remove item number two?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the agenda is amended.

If there's no further objection, the agenda will be adopted.

The agenda as amended will be adopted.

Not hearing or seeing an objection, the agenda as amended is adopted.

All right, let's move on to our actual or the rest of our calendar going on to the adoption of the consent calendar.

We'll now consider the proposed consent calendar.

Items on the consent calendar include the minutes from September 26th Council Bill, payroll bill, Council Bill 120672 and Council Bill 120673. We also have an appointment from the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, one appointment to the Community Police Commission.

Are there any council members that would like to remove any of these items from the consent calendar?

All right, hearing none, I move to adopt the consent calendar.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

been moved and seconded to adopt a consent calendar.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the consent calendar?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Council Member Strauss.

He left.

Thank you.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The consent calendar is adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes and legislation on the consent calendar on my behalf.

So moving on to committee reports, we had six, but we removed one.

So now we have five.

So we have one from the Public Assets and Homeless Committee.

Can you please, Madam Clerk, read item one into the record?

The report of the Public Assets and Homelessness Committee agenda item one, Council Bill 120644, authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreed order or consent decree with the Washington State Department of Ecology or U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to undertake work at the Duwamish Waterway Park site and to seek and accept state remedial action grants for cleanup work related to the site.

The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council President.

As council members will recall, at the request of colleagues, this legislation was held from our meeting two weeks ago to make some additional inquiries into the implications of the legislation.

This legislation enters into an agreement, a consent decree, with the Washington State Department of Ecology.

for work at the Duwamish Waterway Park site due to the presence of soil contaminations that are at this location.

It is Good legislation for us to be passing, given that we could be at risk of facing enforcement actions from the relevant environmental enforcement agencies.

If we don't enter into such a consent decree, and the city could potentially be open to damages to pay for the costs of remediating this site.

I do want to acknowledge at the front and I imagine Councilmember Herbold will speak to this as well, that from looking into this post the committee hearing, we did determine that they're, I mean mostly through, I mean through the diligence of the Herbold office.

that there are implications to an equitable development initiative site that Councilmember Herbold's office has been working to secure, and that this consent decree would likely make that site unavailable for those purposes.

I do just want to state on the record that I'm disappointed that that information was not made readily and apparently available by the parks department through our process of working through the committee, that inquiries from council members as to whether those implications were real or publicly stated as not to be due to, as I understand it, a misunderstanding and a labeling of the property in question in such a way that it wasn't readily apparent to parks, that there was the overlap.

But that said, I do think that it would have been reasonably expected of the parks department to know about this overlapping of the properties.

That's something that from the committee process, I'm disappointed in and would like to work with parks to make sure that in the future, given the volume of legislation that we have that deals with The remediation swapping or acquisition of sites that we work to make sure that a mix up like that isn't repeated in the future, when it has implications for work the district council members have been doing so I do just want to stand on the record that.

that I regret that impact to this project that Councilmember Herbold and the District 1 community have been working on.

And while this legislation is important and we should pass it today, that did cast a bit of a shadow over this process.

But with that, Council President, I don't have any additional remarks.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Are there any comments from our colleagues regarding this item?

Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you so much, and I thank the committee chair, Councilmember Lewis, for his willingness to put a slight hold on the final vote on this legislation.

While I did some fact finding, Councilmember Lewis is correct that the Seattle Parks Department, in partnership with The office of planning community development began a site planning process for one of the parcels impacted by this legislation, the parcel that is referred to by some as the unique electric parcel that planning process began in late 2021. At that time, we're aware that there were many or community organizations in South Park looking for a location to develop a building that could house community serving nonprofits and the Duwamish Valley affordable housing coalition's membership included many of those organizations.

and so OPCD and SPR began meeting with the coalition to learn about the needs so they could be considered as possible site elements for this location alongside open space, shoreline habitat, and other park elements.

Community input has been sought from the South Park Neighborhood Association, The Vietnamese seniors dinner, the Duwamish Valley Sustainable Association, the Duwamish Valley Youth Corps.

There's been input and information through the Duwamish River Festival, Duwamish River Community Coalition on asthma and air quality events, and the DRC, the Duwamish River Community Coalition's Platicas, which are the Latinx-focused meetings for outreach.

In 2023, OPCD and SPR met with representatives of the broader umbrella group, the Duwamish Valley Affordable Housing Coalition, Of which many of the organizations I named are part of to discuss the ecology agreed order, hear their concerns and share what the department knows about the process and timelines.

There was also a meeting in September where they were provided with an update on the agreed order.

And I understand that it was shared with community members that would be a minimum of 4 and a half years until cleanup could be completed as the timeline has always assumed that the existing businesses would remain through the end of their lease.

And it's been again it's been helpful for me, as the council member representing that district or that community that to get affirmation from the parks department not only clarifying the information that information I'd received an error that.

the Union Electric site was not part of this order, but also confirming that the community stakeholders were informed that this minimum of four and a half years until cleanup was understood by everybody who has interest in this particular piece of property for a multi-service building at the location.

Again, I really appreciate Councilmember Lewis for allowing me this time, as well as appreciate the efforts of the Parks Department to clear up the misunderstanding.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Are there any other comments?

Not seeing any.

Councilmember Lewis, I'm guessing you're good.

Yes, thank you.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes.

The chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

So we do not have item number two, so we will go to item number three.

Madam Clerk, can you read item number three into the record?

The report of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee, agenda item three, Council Bill 120669, relating to funding from non-city sources, amending Ordinance 126725, which adopted the 2023 budget, including the 2023 and 2028 Capital Improvement Program.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Madam President.

So Council Bill 12-0669 does three things.

It trues up the 2023 adopted budget so that the city's total appropriation authority matches the available grant balances in several of the funds for HSD, specifically HUD's system of record regarding grant amounts.

It eliminates unneeded appropriation authority in five departments for CDBG dollars, Community Development Block Grant dollars that were allocated in prior years but had gone unspent.

And lastly, it provides the Human Services Department with the appropriation authority needed to expend $7 million of community development block grant funds on facilities for post-overdose and other substance abuse care.

The two facilities that are being considered, one is a facility for a post-overdose subacute stabilization center for individuals who have experience in overdose or any medical emergency related to substance use.

This facility will provide medical stabilization for individuals in need of these services for up to 23 hours, and it's a very, very high priority for the Seattle Fire Department.

The 2nd facility is an outpatient treatment center for individuals with opioid use disorder and other drug dependencies that will offer low barrier access in September.

The human services department updated its 2023 notice of funding availability to reflect the new plan request for qualifications for this funding.

that request for qualifications is anticipated to be released in November with a contract start date in 2024 because of, again, the urgency of addressing these needs.

I want to flag that central staff identified one issue, which is given that the legislation sort of pulls together CDBG funds from numerous city departments, A practice that would be helpful to provide transparent and accountable use of CDBG funds and other federal funds in the future would be a separate fund for those reoccurring HUD grants and to propose financial policies for the fund as appropriate.

And I'm going to be working with council central staff to tee up that in the budget process.

I urge my colleagues vote in favor of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold.

Are there any comments from our colleagues?

Not seeing any, and I'm guessing you are wrapped up your comments as well, Councilor Herbold.

Yep, okay, you're good.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes, the Chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please again affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Looks like item number four is also Council Member Herbold.

Can you please read item number four into the record?

Agenda Item 4, Resolution 32112, Affirming the City's Good Faith, Intent to Consider Raising in the Collective Bargaining Process for the Seattle Police Management Association 2024 Contract Renewal Police Accountability Proposal that had been identified by the public and the city's police oversight agencies.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so the purpose of this resolution is to memorialize public comments that the council heard at the August 8th public hearing on the future.

Seattle Police Management Association bargaining, as well as from our three police accountability bodies.

The council has adopted similar resolutions in 2020 before the current round of negotiations with SPOG in Resolution 31930. The public hearing itself is required under the municipal code prior to bargaining with Seattle's two police unions, in this case, the Seattle Police Management Association.

The practice of adopting a resolution, memorializing what we heard, I think is the best practice for the council to make sure that there is transparency and accountability of the items that the members of the public and our accountability bodies have flagged for us for consideration.

we're going to look at the issues that were flagged by members of the public and accountability partners and compare those those goals those objectives that the public has for what we accomplish in in the Bargaining once it begins is confidential and the members of the public and the accountability bodies have been very helpful in providing their comments and recommendations.

This resolution does not in any way limit the individuals who will be bargaining the contract with SPMA in the future, does not limit them to the items memorialized Uh, in in the resolution, it's simply again, um, captures what we we've heard and creates a public record.

Uh, the current collective bargaining agreement with Seattle police management association expires on December 31st, 2023, and the resolution references, uh, improvements and police accountability from the contract that the council adopted in 2022. which are really important because they include a number of items from the 2017 accountability legislation.

Again, wanting to lift up the success of the last bargaining round with SPMA.

Important to acknowledge their cooperation and their collaboration in reaching our goals to enact the requirements of the accountability legislation in our labor agreements.

I really appreciate their leadership in that effort and I urge my colleagues support for this resolution.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold.

I know that you have brought one of these resolutions and passed, being the Chair of Public Safety and also on the LRPC.

I know that you and I, and Council Member Sawant have been working on these items since 2016. So with that, is there any other comments directed to the chair of this committee before we go to a vote?

Council Member Hurdle, I'm guessing you're good to move forward to a vote?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, great.

Oh, you called me ma'am.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the resolution?

Councilmember Herbold?

Yes.

Councilmember Lewis?

Yes.

Councilmember Morales?

Yes.

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Aye.

Councilmember Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The resolution is adopted.

The chair will sign it.

And Madam Clerk, please affix my signature to the resolution.

Moving on to item number five.

Madam Clerk, can you please read item number five into the record?

Agenda item five, resolution 32111, declaring the city council and the mayor's intent to recognize a seismic retrofit and unreinforced masonry buildings in compliance with the city's URM retrofit technical standards.

The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Madam President.

In 2017, Seattle's Unreinforced Masonry Policy Committee released their final recommendations noting over 1,100 unreinforced masonry buildings in the city which posed a public safety risk.

These buildings were constructed with brick or clay tile-bearing walls where parapets are not secured to the roofs and floors making them vulnerable to earthquakes.

In the four years following that report, I worked with the mayor's office, the state legislature, Office of Emergency Management, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection, and community partners like the Alliance for Safety, Affordability, and Preservation, otherwise known as ASAP, to build towards an approved 2021 city council resolution.

That resolution represented a joint commitment by the mayor and the council to work on developing a phased mandatory seismic retrofit program.

Led by this resolution, SDCI has since hired a URM program manager who has in turn led the department to release the 2023 draft URM retrofit technical standard and director's rule.

These outline pathways for URM property owners to begin Moving towards compliance with forthcoming mandatory URM retrofit requirements.

Again, these mandatory requirements are not in place yet.

But what this resolution does is it creates an interim step before those mandatory requirements are ready to be adopted.

And it provides transparency to property owners and states the city intends to use this technical standard as compliance as a compliance standard in future legislation.

And that next step is actually going to be a voluntary comply requirement or.

opportunity, a voluntary program to allow property owners before the mandatory program goes into effect to voluntarily come into compliance using this technical standard.

Again, allowing some property owners to voluntarily comply and stop work or start work earlier, I think is perceived by many, particularly those in the community that are members of ASAP, as helpful to the overall effort.

Of course, as we know, yesterday evening we received a reminder that earthquakes are unpredictable.

We are fortunate that last night our region only experienced a small earthquake, but we know that the big one can happen at any point, and the sooner we can get our buildings into compliance, the sooner we can protect the residents and neighbors of these buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold, and thank you for reminding us that the big one is going to come.

Appreciate that helpful news.

Is there any comments from my colleagues regarding Resolution 32111?

All right, I'm not seeing any, and I'm guessing we can go forward with the vote.

And so with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

And Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The resolution is adopted.

The chair will sign it.

And will the clerk please affix my signature to the resolution legislation on my behalf.

So if we're moving on to item number six, looks like this is council member Peterson's committee.

Can you please read item six into the record?

They report the transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee agenda and six Council 120661 relating to Seattle Public Utilities updating the solid waste code to establish an administrative enforcement process using notices of violation.

The committee recommends the bill pass.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Council President.

Colleagues, Council Bill 120661 was carefully crafted by Seattle Public Utilities to update our litter code.

The update from SPU establishes an administrative enforcement process and updates fees to discourage illegal dumping in our city.

We heard the legislation twice in our committee and unanimously recommended passage today.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Are there any comments from the floor?

Not seeing any, Madam Clerk, can you please call roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye for introduction and adoption today, so we can keep going.

Is there any other business to come before council before I actually adjourn us?

All right, I do not see anything, any hands up.

All right.

So with that colleagues, this concludes our items of business for today's agenda.

Our next regularly scheduled city council meeting is for October 17th, which was be canceled.

So that means the next council meeting will be October 24th.

So again, it's October 24th, and we've done that to adjust and accommodate Councilor Mosqueda, who is our budget chair.

Thank you all.

We are adjourned.