Seattle City Council Land Use Committee Special Meeting Public Hearing 5/29/2025

All right, good afternoon.

It is May 29th, 2025 and Special Land Use Committee will come to order.

It is 2.07 PM.

I'm Mark Solomon, Chair of the Land Use Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll.

Vice Chair Strauss.

Council Member Moore.

Present.

Council Member Rink.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Chair Solomon.

Present.

Chair, there are four members present.

Okay, thank you.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Thank you very much everyone for coming to this Thursday afternoon meeting to discuss land use.

As always, thank you to our city staff, our city clerks, central staff, SDCI, and SDOT for helping us prepare for this meeting.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

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

For those registered to speak to item two on the agenda, we will accept comments on this item once we reach item two and open it for public hearing.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have lined up for today?

Currently, we have one in-person speaker signed up and one remote speaker.

Okay.

And is the person signed up to speak for item one or item two?

The speaker is generally for land use.

Okay, general land use, and so shall we hold off until we get to that point?

It should occur now.

Do you hear it now?

Okay, let's hear it now.

Each speaker will have two minutes, and we will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

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

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

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

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we will move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

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

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

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

Okay.

You remember my name?

Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Zimmerman, but please refrain from doing the salute.

That would be much appreciated.

I'm so sorry, guys.

You cannot spell a little bit Jewish names, so I'm so sorry.

Yeah, I'm ready.

No, please.

No, please.

Thank you.

My name Alex Zimmerman.

I support Trump.

I speak in council chamber from Tacoma, which you have read, 5,000 times.

I have 6,000 days of trespass.

Democrat, mafia, bandita prosecute me five times.

I want to speak about agenda number one.

You appoint another idiot for commissioner.

I never see this idiot here for 30 years.

So what is they doing in commission?

It's very interesting for me.

Look, room, room, empty.

Exactly what I want to speak right now.

For people, lose.

They don't like you more.

Bye-bye, Nazi pig.

I proposal doing this for 10 last year about open better room in first floor, you know what this means, and how one day per week conversation for three or five minutes, and you, Consul, Ring, you know what it means.

You're talking about people, help people.

You want what is people talking?

Open Bertha Room.

You don't need approving this eight crooks.

You can do this alone.

It's absolutely legal.

You can do this every week.

We can go.

People will be going.

I guarantee you hundreds will become.

Thousands will become.

under camera and microphone, these people can explain something because they don't believe more to these crooks who sit in this chamber.

Look, nobody here, nobody, no one person, only my friend.

Consul thinks doing this, please.

I spoke before with .

You will be out when you don't do this, I guarantee you.

We were Trump, we were new American Revolution.

We need to stop in this Nazi-paid decision.

Do we have any additional speakers?

We do.

We will now be moving on to remote speakers.

Next up, we have David Haynes.

David, go ahead.

Press star six.

I guess council won't be on time for a meeting ever again under this leadership.

Is there any way to convince council that spending $12 billion to go from West Seattle on a different track to downtown Seattle and then out to Ballard is a bad idea, considering how many millions of dollars were spent on Rapid Ride Z and Rapid Ride D buses that already go out to the same area that council thinks a train needs to compete with?

You can tell City Hall is tainted with impaired judgments that permeate decision-making for self-dealing conflicts of interest that are continuing to spill into everything you do, such as forcing the bus to compete with the train, when buses could simply improve and save $12 billion that's needed to fix all the failures of ST2 and ST1.

If you take a look at how unsafe it is to try and get to and use Linklite Rail and King County Metro buses, you realize that all these so-called environmental design experts are frauds.

looking for an easier payday, not actually contending with evil criminals in the neighborhood, while virtue signaling tree transplanting, distracting from a bad use of tax dollars, like untrustworthy leaders watering down the integrity of ethics.

The chair isn't even elected by the people and wasn't chosen for public safety, despite the misleading lies from counsel, who chose a replacement counsel based on a landlord conflict of interest, stacking the deck against renters and restricting a robust housing build-out denied a better comprehensive plan and proper policy because landlords don't have the best interest of community.

Shame on city hall, the real stall in progress in a digress.

It's a racist, woke DEI mess.

Please reconsider the $12 billion.

You already have enough.

And go right off of Gordon gardens.

We didn't make the number 44 bus that used to go out the Gordon gardens, pick people up and take them to Ballard.

Y'all are wasting a whole bunch of money.

Just like you waste a lot of time doing nothing good for the people.

That's all the speakers.

Thank you very much.

With no additional speakers, the public commentary period is now closed and we will now move on to our first item of agenda, first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record.

Agenda item one, appointment 3172. Reappointment of Molly Spitalnik as member of Seattle Design Commission for a term to February 28th, 2027. Great, thank you.

I say presenters join us at the table.

So for the record, can you state your name?

And then begin your comments.

Thank you, Council Members.

Michael Jenkins, Director of the Design Commission.

We're here today to seek reappointment of Molly Spitalnik into the second term of Urban Designer for the Commission.

And you have her reappointment material, her CV, and other material in your packet.

She is currently an urban designer with ZGF firm here in Seattle and specializes in transit, TOD, multifamily, and site planning as an urban designer.

She also has been recently appointed as vice chair before the commission, and we're pleased that she can fill that role as well.

Are there any questions from the committee regarding the reappointment?

Okay.

Hearing none, I move that the committee recommend confirmation of appointment 3172. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded to recommend confirmation of the appointment.

Are there any further comments?

Okay.

Hearing none, will clerk please call the roll on the confirmation of the appointment.

Council member Moore.

Aye.

Council member Rink?

Yes.

Council member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Solomon?

Aye.

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

Great.

Motion carries on the committee recommendation that the council confirm the appointment will be sent to the June 3rd, 2025 council meeting.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Clerk, please read item two into the agenda.

Agenda item two, Council Bill 120975. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning, addressing signage, clarifying requirements, and supporting efficient permitting processes for light rail transit facilities.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

This legislation updates the city codes to support efficient permitting process for the construction of light rail transit facilities and would help fulfill the permit process improvement goals identified by the city and sound transit in 2019. By passing this ordinance, the amended code would support timely construction of the West Seattle Link Extension and the Ballard Link Instruction projects.

After the public hearing, representatives from SDCI, SDOT, and central staff will be available for any questions the council may have.

And we've had public hearing, we've had public commentary.

Yes?

Oh, okay.

This is public hearing.

All right.

Okay.

As presenting officer, I'm now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 120975 relating to land use and zoning code amendments, facilitating sound transits with Seattle and Ballard light rail extensions.

Clerk, how many speakers are lined up for this public hearing?

Chair, we have one in person, one remote.

Okay, one in person, one remote.

All right.

I have two minutes.

Clerk Alain will hand it over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called in the order of registration.

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

The same public comment rules apply to the...

To wrap up comments, speakers' mics will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment relating to Council Bill 120975 is only being accepted at this public hearing.

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

The first speaker.

Okay.

The first speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Okay.

And I would please speak to Council Bill 120975. Yeah.

Yeah.

Dear Heil, my dirty damn Nazi Gestapo bandita.

Bandita and ricketeering, a mafia.

Light rail, what has come to transportation is a nightmare what has happened right now.

You spend a hundred billion dollars for nothing.

In Seattle, in King Country, everything.

Sound transistors is 200 billion bucks.

Nobody use.

Bellevue, Redmond, open light rail six miles, nobody inside.

For right now, most years, it's open.

Yeah, close, yeah, absolutely.

So these are 200 billion dollars.

Seattle, what Israel here is a nightmare.

You look, nobody here, why?

Because they know you crook, they don't believe you more.

So, I repeat again to you, Consul, ring.

If you want what is people speak, one speak for the people, you like people, okay, it's good.

So go for open better room in City Hall one day per week so everybody can come and speak for three or five minutes.

I guarantee you a thousand people will come because nobody here, nobody believe more of this crook who steal us money, steal billions from us when people dying, senior citizen, low income.

Living street, I don't can find a cheaper apartment.

It's a nightmare what has happened right now.

We have a billion and billion dollars what is your crook spent for nothing.

No, for your personal interest in corporation what is support you for election is exactly what's happened.

So my recommendation to you, consul, ring, you know what it means.

Open better room, you can do this alone.

You don't need her permission.

Like last week, you know what it means.

Talking in eight consul, refuse, go against you.

It don't make sense.

Viva Trump, I support Trump.

Viva Trump, viva new American revolution.

We need clean this dirty chamber.

Trump, talk yesterday publicly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have David Haynes.

Hi, thank you, David Haynes.

Is there any way council can just reject this council bill and ST3?

I know that there's a lot of landlords on the land use committee that don't acknowledge their conflicts and your impaired judgments are continuing to push forward bad policies.

that are costing billions of dollars, forcing a train to compete with a bus that could be improved.

And it's just really like revolting to see how selfish politicians are who are blinded with their own greed that they're just willing to go through the motions to accommodate the agenda of public transportation dollars as if is getting a kickback or you're benefiting the poor.

But yet, you don't improve the public safety of the link light rail.

You don't improve the safety of the bus or the efficiencies.

You just keep spending more money.

You keep doubling down.

Another telltale sign, you all have impaired judgment.

And the top three on the land use that are landlords should be kicked out and recuse themselves for the majority of your decision making because you all are permeating the integrity of ethics.

Thank you.

There are no more speakers for the public hearing.

As there are no more speakers for the public hearing, we will call that portion of the meeting closed.

And I see that our presenters have joined us at the table.

So please introduce yourself for the records and proceed when you're ready.

Ketel Freeman, council central staff.

Sarah Maxana, Sound Transit Program, Office of the Waterfront Civic Projects and Sound Transit.

Lindsay King, SDCI.

Okay, great.

Okay, so.

Sure, so this is the third briefing, public hearing today, but the third time this bill, Council Bill 120975 has been in committee.

You've been briefed sort of on its content previously.

Maybe I'll just say a few remarks about context here because there have been a few changed circumstances since the initial briefing back in April.

But as you know, this is a bill that would amend both substantive development standards and procedural standards for permitting light rail transit facilities, which is an essential public facility.

An essential public facility is a type of regulatory status under state law, and local governments are precluded from having development standards that would preclude an essential public facility.

Since the bill was initially briefed back in April, there have been a couple of developments.

One is the Federal Transit Administration has issued a record of decision for the West Seattle Link extension.

That record of decision contains mitigation required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

And also, there has been a change in state law that doesn't actually affect the content of the bill, but sort of reinforces the status of viral transit facilities as essential public facilities for the purposes of the State Transportation Bill and the Growth Management Act.

To telegraph a few things that will be coming to the Council here, as you know, this is not sufficient for Sound Transit to begin their permitting process.

There are a couple of pieces.

There's a piece of legislation, I think two pieces of legislation that will be coming to the Transportation Committee shortly.

Perhaps you know that.

I don't know when they'll be here, but maybe you can fill that in, Sarah.

And those are the transitway agreements that will include the West Seattle Link extension.

Happy to add on to that.

Yes, as Cato mentioned, in order for city departments to be able to issue permits for sound transit projects, the project has to be formally adopted by the city.

And that happens through two pieces of legislation, an ordinance that amends the transitway agreement, which is a long-standing, I think, 25-year agreement between Sound Transit and the city.

And every time a new alignment is added to the regional transit system, exhibits for that alignment are appended into the Transitway agreement so that the Transitway agreement now includes those new systems.

So there'll be an ordinance that will amend the Transitway agreement to include the West Seattle Link extension.

There's also a companion resolution that adopts the alignment itself.

So it mentions where the stations and where the guideways are going to be.

As Kittle also mentioned, that action follows two previous actions.

There's the action by the Sound Transit Board to adopt the project to be built.

And that happened last fall in October, I believe.

And then there is the FTA's action by publishing the record of decision.

And so those are the first two actions on the project.

The final one is at the city of Seattle.

And then once that happens, the city departments are able to process and issue permits for the project.

And we anticipate sending that legislation in June.

So unless Council Members have questions about this bill, Council Bill 120975, or possibly about the upcoming transitway agreement legislation, Council Member Rivera has a proposed amendment related to public outreach.

I'm happy to walk through the amendment.

Okay.

So you all should have, um, amendment one.

If I could pause this for one, I want to reflect for the record that, uh, council member Strauss has joined us remotely.

Okay.

Okay.

So please continue.

Thank you.

All right.

So, um, you all should have amendment one who's distributed by a council member Rivera's office, uh, prior to the committee meeting.

Um, this amendment would, um, increase public outreach requirements.

There are sort of four substantive changes, most of them related to a primary change here, which is a requirement that an applicant, in this case Sound Transit, submit a pre-submittal community outreach plan for permit applications involving light rail stations, maintenance construction, so larger projects, larger aspects of light rail transit permitting.

that a community outreach plan would be a pre-submittal requirement.

So as part of the work that would be done prior to an actual permit application, and as part of SDCI's permit review, I would take a look at how well the community outreach plan had been accomplished and include information about the content of public comment and how that was reflected in the SDCI decision.

A few other components here, a few other changes.

SDCI would be, as I mentioned, would be required to document how the community outreach plan was implemented and incorporate that in its decision.

Another component of the amendment would be the temporary uses for light rail facilities that include a construction management plan would have to be informed by the COP.

And finally, that the notice of decision by SDCI would include information about the possibility for a judicial appeal Um, which is, uh, which exists, um, uh, opportunity for appeal primarily to superior court through land use petition act.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh, council member Rivera is the person bringing the amendment.

Would you like to speak to this?

Please.

Thank you, chair.

And thank you, Ketel for reviewing that colleagues.

I view this as a friendly amendment.

Um, I had a really great conversation with Sarah and the sound transit and the sound transit folks this week.

I know that they're doing outreach.

at all of the stages.

I think this is, since we are the ones that actually have to permit these projects, it's really a way to show our work, you know, accountability is important.

I've talked about that a lot.

And this is a way that we can have information by which we're issuing the permits.

This way, if there's any issues on the back end about public outreach that was done, we have work to show that things were submitted.

Like I said, Sound Transit's already doing this work, so I don't view this as a heavy lift on Sound Transit's part since they're already doing it.

But they would have to proffer it so we see it.

They're showing their work.

We can show our work.

And when we do those permit decisions, then we have that to offer to the public.

So I really, to me, it seems like a very prudent thing to do as the body, the government entity that has to issue those permits.

And like I said, I know that they are doing the work.

So to me, it doesn't seem like a heavy lift to have them submit the work that they're doing, basically, so that it shows, you know, we can see what it is in a more formal way, I suppose.

But nevertheless, it'll be on the record then.

Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, great.

I see Councilmember Rank and Councilmember Strauss, and I'm not sure who raised our hand first.

So let's start with Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to share.

As you can see, I am still here at the Sound Transit Board meeting here.

It is very important.

I'm going to share three things that are all true.

The first is that it is very important that we move this legislation forward today and quickly.

The second thing that is true is that Councilmember Rivera's amendment in intention spirit are good.

And the third thing that is true is that we have not had a lot of time to reflect on the language of Councilmember Rivera's amendment.

because I believe that it was shared out in the last 30 to 60 minutes.

What my ask is gonna be today is that we move the bill forward.

We hold Council Member Rivera's amendment until full council when it can be submitted as a normal amendment rather than a walk-on.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, very good.

Council Member Rank.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple questions to the panel.

Is it correct to say that the goal of this underlying bill is to cut costs and shorten the timeline of our sound transit projects?

I would say there are a couple goals.

I wouldn't cut costs at that.

I would say keeping the project on time and on budget is absolutely paramount.

And as Ketel mentioned earlier, we are looking at the Growth Management Act and the essential public facility language in there.

the partnering agreement that was adopted by city council and signed by the mayor in 2018 as our foundational documents that are telling us to streamline the permit process, keep these projects moving forward.

But all of that is really in service to the voters that passed ST3 nine years ago and trying to keep these projects moving forward so that they can be delivered in a reasonable timeframe.

Thank you for that.

Sorry, is there anything to add?

As the SDCI is the author of this legislation, I want to make sure that if there's anything to add about the goal.

I think all of that is true.

I think we also intend to create clear regulations for sound transit to follow and also for the public to understand what the regulations are that pertain to light rail transit facilities.

I think in all instances, we're trying to mitigate the impacts of the project by the different plans and strategies and standards that we've put in the code.

So while we are keeping it on time and on budget, we're also working in the public's best interest to both assess and mitigate the impacts of the project through our permitting work.

Thank you both for centering us on that.

And as a follow up to that, do you have a sense at this time how much implementing this body of work outlined in this amendment would cost?

We just saw the amendment as well.

We are absolutely supportive of engagement and have been really happy to be integrated into the engagement that Sound Transit's been doing since 2017 on these projects, and was really grateful to have the opportunity to meet with Councilmember Rivera last week with Sound Transit to walk through a lot of that engagement.

Having just seen the amendment, it's a little too too quick for us to respond directly to what the impacts would be on our permit process.

I think we're, we'd like to take it back and look at, you know, what we do for other major projects and how it compares to that and whether there would be any anticipated additional time or process or delay associated with it.

But in theory, you know, of course, we're very supportive of community engagement and ensuring that, as Councilman Rivera said it, that we're, you know, showing the work.

Yeah, I certainly agreed with the matter of wanting to ensure community engagement, of course, wanting to also understand the associated costs.

And my follow-up was going to be just the matter of time and an understanding of how much additional time, associated staff time this might take in order to implement.

And I understand the amendment sponsor has engaged a bit with Sound Transit, wondering how, this is a question for both the amendment sponsor and for the panel, how have we been engaging with SDOT and King County Metro and any other major stakeholder in developing the amendment before us?

The amendment came out of this legislation.

We've been talking about the public outreach and the importance of the public outreach.

And so rather than just have the conversation, I wanted to make sure that got captured as part of the legislation.

I, again, didn't think this was a heavy lift as Sound Transit is doing the engagement and has to do the engagement.

It's more that as the body that is permitting the project the public looks to us when something does not go well.

And I want to make sure that we have documentation on our books to make sure that we can show, hey, no, the agency is doing the outreach.

They showed it to us.

We issued the permit.

It's really to avoid on the back end some, you know, potential folks saying that they didn't know about the project and you know oftentimes we do the outreach many times people say they never heard about it even though the outreach is done and it's really like I said a way to show our work.

and by the way, the reason why this is coming today as a walk-on is because I shared the language with central staff, I believe a couple weeks ago, or at least a week and a half ago, but it has to go through law review, law reviewed it, gave their comments, We had the conversation about the intent.

Definitely do not intend to delay.

As I said last time, and I've said every time I am a big proponent of public transit and want to make sure that these things get done.

I'm trying to mitigate on the back end for the public saying that the outreach had not been done.

because at the end of the day, even though this is a sound transit project, as the people that have to permit the project, the public is gonna look to us and we will get blamed if something does not get done well, regardless of who's actually constructing the project.

So again, I'm just trying to mitigate for the city's responsibility here in terms of having to give that permitting.

and make sure that this is all done in a way that we're able to show our work to the public.

And if we cannot, I will go further to say, if showing our work is a heavy lift and a problem, then I have bigger concerns than I had actually coming into this amendment that was not meant to stall the project or to create an obstacle, if you will.

Quite the opposite.

I want to make sure that on the back end, we're not stalling projects because somebody's suing, because nobody heard about.

I mean, all these things do happen on the back end, and so I want to make sure that that's not happening.

And speaking to, thank you for that background as sponsor of the amendment, Councilmember Rivera.

And just speaking to the panel, the main point here about engagement with other transit agencies also on this matter, how have you connected with SDOT or King County Metro or some of our other major stakeholders on this?

And if not yet, what would that engagement look like following today?

What would be some of the key things you'd want to understand from some of those partners to better understand impact of this amendment?

We have not engaged.

I mean, we just saw the amendment right before the committee meeting.

So we have not engaged, apart from just sent forwarding it to Sound Transit, haven't engaged any of the other transit agencies about the content of the amendment yet.

to the departments to do that engagement because they're the ones that are issuing the permitting as well.

So and the other thing is those departments are not going to be issuing those permits.

And we are it's it's our responsibility to keep our constituents interest at heart.

So all of us or many of us anyway up here have talked about the displacement to our residents and businesses and the importance of making sure we're doing that robust outreach.

So my responsibility is to the constituents.

I certainly can appreciate that.

I'm trying to understand how we're also being in lockstep with the other partners, and so hearing that there will be that engagement happening to understand, again, the full impact of this amendment.

I certainly hear the spirit of the amendment, and I, in good faith, need to understand the full impact impact of what it means for cost and time for these projects, again, because of this underlying goal of what we're trying to do here.

And with that, I'll close on this note.

Again, the public has voted to approve these projects, has been paying for them for years, and we shouldn't force them to keep paying while progress is stalled.

And so that's something that is front of mind for me.

I certainly want to understand again, uh, the, the broader impacts.

And I did hear council member, uh, Strauss making, I, at least a comment on a potential motion for how we move forward for today.

And I would voice my support for, for that approach by being able to advance the bill out of council today and perhaps, uh, bring forward, uh, or revisit, uh, council member Rivera's amendment before full council.

while we also are able to garner that additional information about the the impact from departments thank you okay thank you uh councilmember straws is that uh a new hand or the old one yeah it is a new hand all right thanks i just want to uh councilmember rink brought up the question is this cost savings etc i'll share with you from the board meeting today it has been announced that by the mid-2040s Sound Transit's budget is not stable.

This has kicked off our process to engage in enterprise service delivery where we will be looking at streamlining costs, reducing costs across maintenance, operations, capital planning, capital implementation across all sectors I'll be happy to share with you at briefing at the Monday Council briefing more information on this and to say that this bill is incredibly important, not necessarily for cost savings, but to ensure that we are not cost drivers.

And the most important thing for everyone to take away is the most expensive cost driver.

we are streamlining and making more consistent and more predictable the timelines to build this 100-year infrastructure.

So it's important for us to pass this bill out today so that we don't become Bellevue in regards to sound transit.

and i get my question to the sponsor the amendment is are you are you comfortable bringing this to full council i can say that just real quickly since we received it i was walking around sound transit staff trying to get a concerted feedback on your amendment the general consensus that i get is this is a good amendment we're not sure about the language just because of the type turnaround would you be comfortable in bringing this amendment back to full council

be more comfortable passing this as we pass this bill today.

And again, I'm a little confused about the reticence to pass forward and a piece of legislation that all it says is sound transit, you're going to have to show us your public outreach plan that you should already have done, which they have assured me that they've done before we issue these permits so that we're keeping our eye out.

This is in service of constituents.

And quite frankly, Councilmember Strauss, I'm very confused by the reticence to pass this very simple you know, bill today or amendment as part of this bill as we're keeping our eye out for our constituents.

I really honestly do not understand.

And in terms of this bill should not have caused any delays.

to the project because they've already done all this work.

Unless Sarah, you, I mean, the conversation we had earlier, you've done all, I mean, not you, Sound Transit has done all this work.

So it's a matter of showing the work.

I think that's one reason why we just want to have some time with the language, is to understand that there isn't an unintended, does this add any additional onus or process, or is this just documenting what's already been done over the last nine years?

Literally, I've only read through it once right before the committee meeting, so I just haven't had time to talk with Sound Transit, to talk with law, to talk with the departments that are implicated by it.

just to do basic due diligence before opining on what the right course of action would be, to talk with the executive's office, so, yeah.

Thank you, Sarah.

I will say I did talk to law and they did not flag for me that this would add any, because we do have a law at the state level that prevents us from sitting on permits and from, you know, so that was really important to me as well, that the way it was written was not written in a way that was gonna delay anything.

So I'll say that.

And I think all the intention, 100% on the same page.

And I think there's just basic due diligence that we need to do before we can represent the executive or represent other departments or agencies.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss and then Council Member Moore.

Thank you.

I just wanted to respond.

The only reticence that I have is that I only received the language, you know, an hour or so ago.

As I've said, every time I've spoken to this amendment, the content and intent is good.

My reticence is that I'm not doing it.

I need to make sure that I tell my constituents and my voters that I have done my job in reviewing the legislation, which has not been possible on this short timeline.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember Moore.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT THAT IT DOES SAY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHALL INCORPORATE TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT'S A HUGE what's the word, caveat, to the extent feasible.

So I'm not at all concerned that this is going to create unnecessary delay or unnecessary additional cost.

Basically, it's just saying you need to show your work, as Council Member Rivera has continued to say, and then at the back of it, it shows you what we want to see in your work.

And I think if we are arguing that it's, It's too burdensome, too cumbersome to incorporate public feedback.

That's a significant problem.

And the fact that there's so much reticence, I understand the need to do due diligence.

It's very easy to read what's here.

And I think the institutional position is always give us more time.

But it's our job to decide whether what we're asking is burdensome, and I don't believe it is.

We're already required to do that and even if it adds a little bit additional cost, that's what we need to incur because we are making significant changes and the public has the right to be engaged and for us to be able to go back to them when they say that they haven't been engaged to say, well actually you were.

This is as much about covering our ground as it is about making sure that a proper process is done.

And I'm not going to vote for this to get it out of committee today if this amendment doesn't pass.

So talk about slowing things down.

This is a basic, basic process amendment and it's being Anyway, it's a basic process amendment.

And if it's not, then that's a bigger problem.

Thank you.

Before we begin or continue, I just want to be clear about our timeline.

When is this vote?

If we vote out of committee today or if we vote out of the committee next week?

When does this come before full council for final consideration?

June 10th, okay.

So regardless of whether we pass it out today or next week, after people have had a chance to do their due diligence, as I said, for sound transit, for SDCI, to look at it.

Doesn't matter, it's not gonna go before full council until the 10th of June.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

Right.

So again, I just want to be clear on the timeline.

Uh, I saw council member rank.

Did you have your hand up?

You were told you withdrew your hand or, Oh, you did.

Okay, cool.

So I guess right now the, uh, issue before us is a procedural one.

Um, do we vote on the amendment to the bill and then vote on the bill to or do we vote to postpone?

Couldn't make it easy for me today, could you?

Chair, may I?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Sure, I'm going to just suggest that we don't vote on it today because I've been hearing my colleagues characterize my concerns as not wanting Sound Transit to do the basic work that we're asking them to do and based on the content of the amendment, which is factually inaccurate, I would say false.

I've said at every point that the intention of this amendment is good, the problem being that we only just received it.

if that's the case you know i would say let's hold the bill in committee let's have time to be able to read it while we're not doing you know when it's not 30 to 60 minutes before the committee and um i just really hope colleagues that we're not becoming the next bellevue in regards to sound transit thank you okay thank you all right chair i yes may i

Yes, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Did not mean, honestly, I am very stunned by this reaction.

Did not mean to cause delays or issues for you today.

So my apologies.

That is not what I was trying to do.

This is a very...

And also, I wasn't trying to delay this vote.

This is an important vote.

And if we're talking about this bill or this amendment that I'm bringing would not cause delays, but our voting on these things will.

And also, Councilmember Strauss, I appreciate that this is a walk-on amendment.

You, too, have brought walk-on amendments in the past.

And so we have, as a body, given each other grace, because sometimes it takes a little longer.

to bring these things forward.

But if I had thought it was gonna create this much discontent, I would not have brought it, I just didn't wanna delay this vote because this is an important vote.

And I know that this amendment was really not, there's not a lot here, in my opinion, and having had the opinion from law and knowing that law was very clear when I'm in and Ketel has been very clear that I'm not trying to delay the process.

I'm just trying to make sure we have documentation for the outreach that was done.

So if we we are constantly when we give permits and make other decisions, not just permitting, we are constantly hearing from our constituents, you didn't let us know this happened, you didn't have a public hearing or you did, and some of this stuff, and this stuff is in us, Sound Transit, we're not doing the work, we're giving permits, but it's not under our control.

And so at the very least, we should be able to show the public the outreach that was done to Council Member Moore's part, so they don't say, nobody told us we could say, actually, it's right here.

Sorry, you didn't see it, but it was done.

And that puts us in a much stronger position than not being able to proffer that and be able to give that to our constituents.

So it is to put the city in a better position that I offered this.

So again, apologies.

And I am stunned by the reaction.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

You know, we've talked about, you know, the amendment coming forward and, you know, being very upfront that, again, with Sound Transit, show your work.

And again, from what I've been hearing in terms of the engagement that has been done, they are doing the work.

This, to me, is just reinforcing that.

I also understand the point that you're making is like, yeah, we just saw this, so we really...

can't comment on it as to, you know, what we can do with it.

So I'm trying to find a way, you know, forward because, again, understand the spirit and intent of the amendment.

We also want to move this legislation.

We want to do, you know, we want to get there and try to figure out, you know, procedurally, you know, how we make that happen.

So, uh, council member rank, I see your hands raised.

Thank you, chair.

I just had an additional question for, um, Kittle, um, related to this for, for my own understanding.

Does this amendment create new requirements that have not previously existed?

So yeah, there, there would be the, not currently in the code and not in the mayor's proposal, would be a new requirement for a community outreach plan.

And there's sort of a key component of this is that it is a pre-submittal requirement that then also becomes part of the SDCI director's review once the application is made.

And then it's ultimately reflected in the Type 1 or Type 2 decision that goes along with the permit application made by Sound Transit.

A new component to this is that there is a body of work that would need to precede a permit application.

And I think there's one additional piece too that not only precedes the permit application on the part of the applicant, but then there's also this final sentence about the permit decision shall summarize the outreach and explain how the decision addresses public comment where feasible.

That piece we're trying to kind of dissect in real time here to understand.

Because I think that is something that I'm not sure what that would look like.

And that is something that is not required on other permits right now.

So trying to understand, is this something that we're applying to Sound Transit that we don't apply to other projects?

Is that different?

Maybe it's a very simple exercise, but that's something that we would want to go back.

And especially since it implicates directors of a couple departments, we would want to check with those.

those departments to see what they think this means for them.

Can I add to that?

Typically in a master use permit decision, we have public comment period.

We do a posting on the site.

We do a mailing to everyone within 300 feet.

They then submit comments directly to the department that become the basis of our decision and our decision making.

What this does is it sets a plan that Sound Transit would be responsible for that we would approve, but they would implement, they would accept the comments, they would show how they're responsive to the comments, then we would have to render a decision about our code criteria relative to their engagement plan.

That is something that doesn't exist in the code right now.

and not through an outside agency then submitted to the department.

So that is my concern with it, is that normally there's a direct representation between the public and the department for us to render a decision.

Thank you all for weighing in on that.

That's helpful clarification.

And I think colleagues to this point, these are just the pieces that I'm seeking to understand before taking a vote on this.

I understand that law has weighed in on this matter.

I'd like to hear directly from the departments that will be implementing this, what this would mean logistically and the cost and time associated with it.

I just wanna have that knowledge before taking a vote on this matter and certainly would welcome more time for that analysis to be conducted and brought before us.

Thank you.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Are you we are not precluded from doing our own outreach and doing all that.

So this is doesn't they're not I don't.

Sound Transit is not our agency.

They're not under our authority.

So all we're saying is Sound Transit, you're going to do outreach.

You've got to tell us what outreach you're doing.

It doesn't preclude our outreach, but it shouldn't also mean that then we're only going to rely on our outreach and not theirs since they're the ones actually having the impact on community.

So one doesn't preclude the other.

And this does not say that we don't get to still do our own outreach.

So I just wanted to make that very clear.

So chair, I do have a question about, so do we have a land use committee next week?

Yes, we do.

So then on June 4th.

So were you proposing earlier to delay the entire vote till Tuesday?

We could do that.

So that colleagues could have more time and the departments could have more time with the amendment?

That was something that I was thinking about.

And I was actually, again, this is where procedurally we want to figure out what we want to do, advance the bill.

without the amendment and then have the amendment be taken up in our next committee meeting before we get to our next council meeting or delay the vote until next week on this amended bill to give our partners at SDOT and SDCI, Sound Transit, and our council colleagues to have a chance to review the amendment and see how that plays with everything.

Again, given that if we voted out of committee on the 4th, it will still be able to be taken up at full council on the 10th.

And as a sense right now, if we've, even if we voted out today, it's still not going to be until the 10th when this will be, uh, before the full council.

I would feel most comfortable than not voting on the bill today and waiting until Tuesday and then folks can have their time with the amendment for your consideration chair.

All right.

So, um, what I'm hearing and I'm getting a strong feeling that y'all need time accounts, colleagues need time.

Um, and I don't know if I can just, you know, unilaterally decide that we are going to delay the vote on this.

full bill until the next Land Use Committee, which will be next Wednesday.

Wednesday?

Wednesday, yes.

Okay.

So procedurally, can I do that?

Yeah, we have a parliamentarian here, but as the chair, unless somebody wants to move the bill, you can just adjourn the meeting and there's been discussion and we can come back on Wednesday and talk more.

Oh, okay.

Right.

So, well, thank you for that.

Um, so yeah, any other thoughts, any other comments?

Because, you know, as the chair of the committee, that's where I think I want to go because I want to give my colleagues time.

I want to give our partners time, uh, to consider everything.

And hopefully we will have a final vote next week move everything forward to keep us on time and on schedule.

If that's even a thing with transportation projects, I don't know.

So any other comments from the committee?

All right, great.

Given that, any advice from the clerk?

Okay, pretty good.

Okay, I want to thank everyone.

We have reached the end of our agenda.

I want to thank you all for presenting.

I want to thank Council Member Rivera for bringing forward the amendment that, again, we've talked about.

I like it.

Let's do it.

But let's give our colleagues time to absorb it.

And we're going to have our final vote next week at our January, excuse me, June, Fourth Line News Committee, which will be at 2 p.m., On Wednesday.

Is there any further business to come before the committee?

Okay.

Hearing none and seeing none.

We are adjourned.

It is 3.02 PM.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Appreciate your participation today.

Thank you, Chair.