Seattle City Council 10/7/19
Articles,  Blog

Seattle City Council 10/7/19


IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT HE CAN SPEAK BY PHONE. I WOULD MOVE COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN TO PARTICIPATE AND VOTE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. MOTION SECONDED. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON MY MOTION? THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE VOTE AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE VOTE NO. THE MOTION WILL CARRY AND COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN VOTES UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT IT IS WORKING. COUNCILMEMBER CABRERA O’BRIEN IS HERE ALREADY. >>THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, I APPRECIATE IT. >>NO OBJECTION. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CALENDAR TO BE ADOPTED, THE REFERRAL THERE IS ADOPTED. NO OBJECTION. TODAY’S AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. NO MINUTES FOR APPROVAL. NO PRESENTATIONS TODAY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS IN THE REFERRAL CALENDAR AND THE WORK PROGRAM. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE EXTENDED FOR 20 MINUTES AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THAT MAY NOT BE CLEAR. WE WILL HAVE REGULR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS AND OUR WORK PROGRAM. LATER IN THE PROGRAM AGENDA WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFICALLY ON 976. WE WILL ALLOT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME ON THAT LEGISLATION. IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR GENERAL COMMENT, YOU ARE VERY WELCOME TO SPEAK TWICE ON THAT ONE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT MAY BE A LITTLE REDUNDANT. WHEN I GO THROUGH THE GENERAL COMMENTS SECTION, IF YOU MADE A MISTAKE AND WANT TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUST INDICATE SO WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE HEARING. HAVING SAID THAT, THESE ARE ALL GENERAL COMMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS 976, OKAY, THANK YOU. FIRST TO SPEAK, I HOPE I MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU MIGHT BE ON THIS. I APOLOGIZE. FOLLOWED BY TOM ALLEN. >>THIS BILL CB 119600 IS NOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR FRIVOLOUS APPEALS. IT IS ABOUT STRIPPING US OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FOR NONFUNCTIONAL HEALTH THREATENING DESIGNS, WITH THOSE FROM OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS. THESE DEVELOPERS ARE OBSTRUCTIONISTS THAT ARE PUSHING THE APPEALS ANGLE TO YOU, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE ASKED TO MITIGATE HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT LIKE LOSS OF DAYLIGHT TO THE RESIDENCES AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND OVERWHELMING PUBLIC STREETS AND VALLEYS WITH SERVICING THESE MEGA TOWERS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SOLVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TOUGHEN UP DESIGN REVIEW. WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM. THIS BILL CLAIMS IT WILL PROVIDE A BETTER PROCESS. RATHER THAN CRAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS, TODAY, LET’S LOOK AT THOSE RULES AND SEE WHAT THOSE PROCESSES ARE, AND DELAY THIS BILL UNTIL IT CAN BE PROPERLY VETTED. THANK YOU. >>TOM ALLEN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY STEVE ZEMKE. >>HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING US OUT TODAY. I WANT TO SHOW SOME EXAMPLES OF THE APPEALS THAT HAVE COME UP. THIS IS FROM THE FORT LAWTON APPEAL. THE NEXT PAGE HAS A SECTION ON PARKING. THIS IS FROM THE FLATS APPEAL. THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM A PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE LEADER OF THE GROUP THAT LED THE APPEAL. ALL OF THESE HIGHLIGHTED THINGS ARE SIMPLY ABOUT PARKING. THEY ARE NOT REALLY ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS FROM THE BULLET CENTER APPEAL. THIS WAS BUILT TO BE THE GREENEST BUILDING IN THE WORLD. ALL OF THESE HIGHLIGHTED THINGS ARE ABOUT PARKING AND HOW THEY WANTED MORE PARKING. 53% OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN SEATTLE ARE FROM PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE USE. IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF BUILDING A GREEN BUILDING TO APPEAL. THIS IS FROM THE EASTLAKE MICRO HOUSING APPEAL. THIS ONE BROUGHT UP PUBLIC SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT FROM TRANSIENTS, AND FOR RENTERS. AND BELOW THAT AGAIN IS PARKING. THIS IS FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY LOOKED AT 15 YEARS OF PROJECT APPEALS. VERY FEW WERE NOT COVERED BY OTHER CODES IN THE CITY AND THEY NOTED THE INCREASE TO THE COST OF HOUSING. NOT JUST THROUGH PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT HAPPENING, BUT ALSO THROUGH DELAY, HOUSING DELAYED IS HOUSING TONIGHT. THIS IS MALICIOUS USE. PLEASE PASS THIS COMMON SENSE REFORM. THANK YOU.>>FOLLOWING STEVE WILL BE RICHARD ELLISON. >>I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PASSING THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION UNDER COUNSEL BILL. YOU ARE LOOKING AT ELIMINATING REVIEW PEER TO START OUT WITH THE INTRODUCTION, THERE IS GENERALLY LESS NEED TO EMPLOY AND EFFECTIVELY MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. IT WILL BE PERIODICALLY UPDATED FOR GREATER PROTECTIONS AND ORDINANCES. YOU SAID THAT WE CAN UPDATE AND DEAL WITH THESE THINGS. THE OTHER ISSUE WITH THAT PARTICULAR CODE IS AS I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE. THE EXPANSION FOR THE CITY THAT SAID DEVELOPERS MUST REPLACE ALL TREES THAT ARE 24 INCHES OR LARGER. THAT HAS BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE 2001. IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED. NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ISN’T A NEED FOR APPEALS. I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED. IT IS RIDICULOUS TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS, A MISSION TO HELP PEOPLE BUILD AND HAVE THEM AT THE SAME TIME BE OVERSEEING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN IGNORED. SAYING LET’S GET RID OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM. THEY ARE OUT THERE TO MAKE MONEY, AND I CAN MAKE MONEY OFF PUBLIC HOUSING. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] >>LET’S CALL THREE NAMES. FOLLOWING RICHARD WILL BE FRANK, FAY, JANET, AND ALICE. >>>MY NAME IS RICHARD ELLISON. PLEASE VOTE NO ON BILL CD 119600. THIS IS ABOUT THE ENTIRE POLICY OF APPEALS. THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS IS THE WOLF IN CHARGE OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE DEVELOPED. DCI DECIDES HOW NEIGHBORHOOD CHICKENS ARE GOING TO BE HUMANELY SLAUGHTERED TO FEED THE MARKET. CURRENTLY THEY COULD’VE TAUGHT WAS IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL, YOU COULD GO TO THE TOP JUDGE, A PROJECT MANAGER WHO HAS PROCESSED SO MANY APPLICATIONS OVER THE YEARS, THEY ARE HONORABLE AND EXPERIENCED IN THESE LIFE-AND-DEATH DECISIONS. WE ARE LOOKING TO STOP THESE MASS APPEALS, THERE IS A HUNGRY CURRENT FEEDING FRENZY FOR HOUSING. WE WANT TO BYPASS THE – – WE WANT TO GIVE THE MANAGERS THE FINAL SAY IN THE BIG NEW CITYWIDE DECISIONS. THERE IS NO NEED TO PRETEND THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE A POSITIVE FUNCTION ANYMORE. THE DCI I IS LOOKING TO DO THIS IN THIS HUMANELY A MANNER AS NEEDED. I DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO PASS THIS EMINENT, WHICH I URGE YOU NOT TO PASS. THE ANTI- APPEAL BILL. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] >>GOOD AFTERNOON. I TESTIFY HERE IN FRUSTRATION, TO URGE REJECTION OF BILL 119600, WHICH WILL GET REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT ACTION IN SEATTLE. IT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ORWELLIAN NEWS SPEAK. THE DESTRUCTION OF GREEN SPACE AND NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS BILL WOULD DESTROY IN ALL REGISTRY ALREADY FRAGILE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. IT WOULD LEAVE A GREATER BURDEN ON FUTURE GENERATIONS. IT WOULD ACCELERATE LOW INCOME RESIDENTS LEAVING SEATTLE. IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SERIOUSLY ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING. A GREATLY INCREASES GENTRIFICATION. AND IT PROVIDES NO ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WILL FURTHER ENRICH THE MUZZLED VOICE OF IMPACTED CITIZENS. I WISH EACH OF YOU COULD THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO TODAY. DO YOU WANT TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT REWARDS ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE, MONEYGRUBBING BEHAVIOR? COME BACK AND SUPPORT THE GREEN NEW DEAL AND SUPPORT THIS BILL, WE WOULD KNOW THAT YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. I URGE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG. [ APPLAUSE ] >>I’M ALICE LOCKHART WITH 350 SEATTLE AND THE GREEN NEW DEAL. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THE SHOWMAN BEFORE ME. I WANT ALL OF YOU ON THE COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT YOUR MOST IMPORTANT LEGACY IS YOUR CLAIMANT LEGACY. AND OUTSIDE OF SEATTLE, WE HAVE SEEN A RAPID FILLING WITH PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN SEATTLE. WE WOULD LOVE TO BUILD AS MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO HOUSE EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO MOVE INTO THIS CITY. WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY. THE TAXPAYERS ARE NOT GOING TO MAGICALLY COME UP WITH THAT MONEY. WE HAVE TO HAVE A COMBINATION OF MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS AND SOCIAL HOUSING. WE ALL KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE. THIS BILL IS COMMON SENSE LEGISLATION, THAT SIMPLY ADOPTS IN OUR CODE LEGISLATION ALREADY ADOPTED AT THE STATE LEVEL. TO MAKE IT SOMEWHAT EASIER TO BUILD CLIMATE FRIENDLY HOUSING IN THE CITY. I URGE YOU TO PASS IT WITH ALL OF ITS STRENGTH INTACT. I URGE YOU NOT TO VOTE FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH WILL BE PROBLEMATIC. SUBJECT TO FULL REVIEW. AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO REVIEW, IT WILL DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEASURE. I URGE EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT. >>THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] >>ALICE, MEGAN, THEN ROBERT.>>I AM JANET. >>JAN IS FIRST, THEN ALICE, THEN MEGAN. >>I’M REPRESENTING CITY MARKET, AND 8,780,000 PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PROTECT THE PIKE PLACE MARKET. WHY DOES THIS MATTER FOR SUSTAINABLE NEW FILAMENT? IN SEATTLE WE HAVE IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS, WE HAVE CREEKS SUPPORTING SALMON. WE HAVE BEACHES AND FISHERIES THAT IMPACT ORCA WHALES. WE HAVE PARTS WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TREES, THAT FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE DAILY FOR FREE. AND BEAUTIFUL AND THRIVING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ASSETS AND FERTILE HOUSING. I REPRESENT A GROUP IN THORTON CREEK AND NORTHGATE. UTILIZING THE APPEALS TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IT WAS AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE FOR SUSTAINABILITY. I BELIEVE YOU WOULD AGREE, CORRECT? THAT LITTLE CREEK RUNNING THROUGH CITY HALL, I BELIEVE IT WAS CREATED AS A SYMBOL BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT WE DID TODAY AT THORTON CREEK. SO THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO STAND UP FOR SUSTAINABILITY. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESERVE CITIZEN RIGHTS. THE RIGHT TO COMMENT AND TO APPEAL IS YOUR PROCESS. A PROCESS FOR ALL CITIZENS. THROUGH THIS FUNDAMENTAL VALUE. SEATTLE AS A SENSE OF PLACE AT STAKE, AND VALUES AT STAKE. WE DO NOT WANT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] >>THANK YOU.>>IS ALICE LOCKHART HERE? SO MEGAN. ALICE, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK AGAIN. MEGAN, ROBERT, JESSE SIMPSON. >>THANK YOU. I AM MAKING CREWS HERE TO TALK ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDINGS FACING SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM UNMITIGATED DEVELOPED. WE WISH THERE WERE FEWER APPEALS, NOT EVERYONE IS ABLE TO PUT THEM TOGETHER. BUT THE LAND-USE SYSTEM IS FORCING APPEALS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKS AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF DESIGN REVIEW. THIS BILL DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. THEY SAY THAT WE DON’T NEED CIBA, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY COVERED AND IT OFFERS THIS DOCUMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS DETACHMENT ON THE RECORD TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHY IT IS INCORRECT. UNDER A 100-YEAR-OLD LANDMARK, WE AND OTHER BUILDINGS IN OUR BLOCK ARE NEXT TO THE PROPOSED TOWERS THAT WILL CAUSE US TO LOSE 94% OF OUR DAYLIGHT. DEVELOPERS SAY THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO ANYTHING TO MITIGATE THIS. LAST YEAR, THERE WERE APPEALS WITH DEMANDS FOR ACCESS TO DAYLIGHT AND PROTECTION OF SETTINGS FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS. EVEN THOUGH THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR, THERE HAS BEEN NO TALK ABOUT THAT AT DESIGN REVIEW. THEY APPLIED ARBITRARILY OR NOT AT ALL. THE BILL SET ASIDE DUE PROCESS. WE ASK YOU AS THE PEOPLE WE ELECT TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR ALL CONSTITUENTS. APPEALS ARE NOT ALWAYS FRIVOLOUS AND THE CAUSE OF THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS MORE COMPLICATED. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YES FOR THIS BILL.>>I WILL AGAIN REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT PASS 119600. HOW CAN THESE BE MORE MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS? THESE ARE ISSUES THAT MY GROUP HAS EXPERIENCED IN THEIR OWN GROUP. WE’VE LOOKED AT THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. ENCOURAGING CHALLENGES, DESIGN WAIVERS AND DEPARTURES TO EXIST WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTATION. SDC I WORKS CLOSELY AND PLACES CONSISTENT CONTINUOUS PRESSURE FROM DEVELOPERS, IT’S DECISIONS ALSO REFLECT THIS. THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS SET UP, THE DESIGNATED AT WORK MITIGATION. THE RESOURCES CONCERNED GROUPS WITH MISGIVINGS HAVE SPENT THOUSANDS OF HOURS STUDYING THIS PROBLEM. WE ARE EAGER TO HELP AND TO FIX IT. THANK YOU.>>>I AM JESSE JESSE SIMPSON, I GREW UP IN SEATTLE, IN WEST SEATTLE, AND CURRENTLY LIVE IN CAPITOL HILL. SEATTLE FACES HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS AND CLIMATE CRISIS. NEW, DENSER HOUSING IN SEATTLE MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN DIVORCE THOSE OF US NOT LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE BOUGHT A HOME IN THE 80s OR 90s CAN AFFORD TO RENT APARTMENTS IN THIS CITY. WE NEED TO ALLOW THE MANY PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE TO LIVE IN SEATTLE TO DO SO. IT IS PERVERSE THAT THIS HAS BEEN USED TO DELAY AND BLOCK MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. I’VE ONLY SEEN IT USED TO DELAY WHAT WE NEED. AS A PRIMER PRIOR TO FUSS IT INCLUDE PARKING OR THE SOLAR PANELS OVER THE BUILDING. I COMMEND COUNCIL WORK ON THIS LEGISLATION AND URGE YOU TO PASS IT AS IS. THANK YOU.>>WE’VE GONE TO THE 20 MINUTE TIME. WE STARTED 19 MINUTES AGO. WE HAVE TO TAKE THE TIME DOWN BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A SHEET AND A HALF TO EXTEND PUBLIC COMMENT. >>I’M ONLY GOING TO USE ONE MINUTE. >>I AM SUBMITTING MY TESTIMONY, AS A MEMBER OF THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS ALLIANCE. WE APPRECIATE THE BRIEF APPOINTMENT AT THE LAST MINUTE TO DISCUSS THIS LEGISLATION WITH US, IT DOES NOT COME CLOSE TO ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS. ALLOWING DCI TO CALL THE SHOTS IS LIKE LETTING THE FOX GUARD THE HEN HOUSE. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW IF YOU PASS THAT BILL TODAY, AS WE HAVE NOTIFIED YOU, IT WILL REQUIRE FORMAL REVIEW AND THRESHOLD DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. OUR STAFFER WAS EVEN QUOTED AS SAYING THE COUNCIL IS NOT INTERESTED IN REVIEW. TO ME, THAT IS SHOWING UNDER CONVENTIONAL LAW AND FAKE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALISM. THIS BILL HAS NEEDED PROVISIONS THAT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE. BUT FOR NOW IT NEEDS TO BE DELAYED.>>I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND PUBLIC COMMENT DOWN TO ONE MINUTE PER PERSON. UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH WITH GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL HEAR FROM DEBORAH, LOGAN, ACE, TAKE THE CLOCK DOWN TO ONE MINUTE, PLEASE. IS HOUSTON? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? >>MY NAME IS ACE. I MOVED TO SEATTLE BEFORE THE END OF 2016. I HAVE BEEN A RENTER FOR THE ENTIRE IT FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE. I AM A LICENSED ARCHITECT. PART OF THE NEW PROJECT WAS IN MY OFFICE. I SAW THE PROJECT THAT HAD BEGUN IN 2016. IT STILL IS GOING THROUGH NUMEROUS DESIGN REVIEWS TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTS WHO LIVED AROUND THAT POTENTIAL SITE. IT IS STILL NOT SUFFICIENT. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THAT PROCESS, IT’S ONE OF THE REASONS I LOST MY JOB. SO I HOPE THAT YOU PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SUFFER THE IMPACT OF DELAYS THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU.>>FOLLOWING CALVIN WILL BE JULIA.>>HELLO, MY NAME IS CALVIN JONES, HERE TO SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION AS WRITTEN. I’VE SEEN IT USED IN FORT LAWTON, MHA, AND THE ACCESSORY FORMS. IN ALL CASES IT WAS A VERY SMALL SET OF WEALTHY HOMEOWNER GROUPS ABLE TO RAISE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO SUE THE CITY AND DELAY OUR PUBLIC PROCESS ON THESE ISSUES, FOR YEARS, IF NOT DECADES. I THINK THAT PROCESS IS UNDEMOCRATIC BECAUSE IT LETS A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF VOICES SQUASH ALL OTHER VOICES IN THE CITY WITH LEGISLATION ONGOING. AND IT TAKES TOO LONG. WE HAVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND CLIMATE CRISIS AND WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO LITIGATE THESE HEARINGS ON EVERY SINGLE DETAIL OF THESE PROPOSED POLICIES. WE NEED TO ACT BOLDLY AND QUICKLY. SO, PLEASE, PASS THIS LEGISLATION AND LET’S MOVE ON FOR MORE TYPES OF HOUSING IN OUR EXCLUSIVE SINGLE TYPE ZONES. >>I AM A LICENSED PERSONAL ENGINEER WITH 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, I AM AN ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNER AND RESIDENT. I’M GOING TO GO OFF SCRIPT BECAUSE I’M HEARING THINGS TODAY WHY THIS BILL SHOULD BE DELAYED. I AGREE WITH WHAT THE OPPOSING SIDE IS SAYING A LOT OF THINGS. BUT THEY ARE COMING AT IT FROM A LOWRISE PERSPECTIVE. I LIVE IN A HIGH-RISE DOWNTOWN SECTION. WE ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORT FOR THE HOUSING AND WE ALL AGREE THAT HAS TO COME THROUGH IDENTIFIED EXISTING LAND-USE. THE PROBLEM IS HOW THAT MANIFESTS. I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE BUILDING A DUPLEX IN A LOWRISE AREA. MOST PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO STOP THAT. WHEN YOU TAKE OUR SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE BUILDING A 46 STORY SKYSCRAPER NEXT TO SIX HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK, THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SKYSCRAPER IS IMPROVING IT IS DECREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF EVERY BUILDING AROUND THEM. YOU NEVER LOOK AT THE OVERALL IMPACT. SO I WARN YOU TO DELAY THE APPROVAL OF THIS BILL AND FINE- TUNE IT AS IS NEEDED. >>WE HAVE BRITNEY, PATIENCE, AND THEN CHRIS. ALL OUR>>>I’M NOT FEELING 100% TODAY, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING BRIEF BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT. I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF COUNSEL BILL 119600. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IS TO KEEP PEOPLE LIVING NEAR THEY NEAR THE PLACE THEY WORK AND PLAY. THESE PROJECTS ARE WELL STUDIED, AND IN THE MIDST OF THIS HOUSING CRISIS, WE MUST ALLOW PEOPLE TO WALK, BIKE, AND LIVE WITHIN THE CITY. WE CAN REDUCE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT THAT WAY. >>THANK YOU. PATIENTS? >>GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PATIENCE. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPING CONSORTIUM, TWO EXPRESS STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE CHANGES, SEE BUT IS OFTEN TALKED ABOUT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND WE ARE EXCITED TO SEE THE COUNCIL TAKE A RESPONSIBLE STEP BY RETURNING IT TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT, TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT. WE PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT BY BUILDING SUSTAINABLE CITIES WITH HOUSING CHOICES, WHERE PEOPLE GET JOBS, TRANSIT AND SERVICES NEAR SCHOOLS. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT OVER THE YEARS, IT HAS BEEN USED FOR PREDATORY EFFORTS, DELAYING DESPERATELY NEEDED HOMES FOR PEOPLE IN OUR CITY. THIS CANNOT CONTINUE WHEN WE, TODAY, MUST BUILD 44,000 EVERY FIVE YEARS IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT LOWER AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSES ARE ABLE TO KEEP UP. WE HAVE SEEN CONTINUED DELAY FOR EFFORTS FOR A FORMAL HOUSING AND THAT IS NOT AN OPTION FOR US. THANK YOU. >>FOLLOWING CHRIS WILL BE LISA AND STEPHEN.>>MI NEXT? >>YES YOU ARE. GO AHEAD. >>I HAVE TO PROTEST THE UNPRECEDENTED ELECTRONIC VOTING. I ENDORSE PAST POINTS MADE AGAINST THE SEPA DESTRUCTION BILL, THE DESTRUCTION OF SEATTLE’S GREAT LEADERSHIP ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. I HAVE READ SEVERAL APPEALS, ALWAYS AS A VOLUNTEER AND NEVER WITH LEGAL HELP. I WOULD DEFY ANYBODY TO LOOK AT THOSE RECORDS OF MOST OF THOSE APPEALS AND FIND ANYTHING OF THOSE CARICATURES OF CRITICISM THAT WE’VE HEARD IN THESE APPEALS. THIS BILL WILL NOT PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT WILL IN FACT INCREASE DISPLACEMENT, JUSTIFICATION, AND DENY RESIDENTS A DECENT QUALITY OF LIFE. WE MUST TALK ABOUT BALANCE HOUSING OR OTHERWISE WE ARE CONSIGNING PEOPLE TO LIVING IN A CONCRETE PLACE WITHOUT GREENERY OR WILDLIFE AROUND THE. DAILY PEACE AND QUIET, AIR AND WATER QUALITY, PARKING FOR DISABLED, ELDERLY, AND SMALL BUSINESSES. THE DESIGN REVIEW DECISION, DCI DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES. SEND THIS BACK FOR THE FAIR AND PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS. THIS IS A TERRIBLE DISSERVICE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE’VE GOT TO START OVER, THANK YOU. >>LISA IS NEXT. IS LISA HERE? OKAY, LISA, THEN STEPHEN ROBERTS. >>I AM LISA KUHN. I’M HERE BECAUSE YOU INTEND TO USE 119600 TWO INDUCE SEPA REGULATIONS. AND IT SEEMS YOU ARE RACING PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BE THE FIRST TO DESTROY EXISTING ENVIRONMENT TO PROTECTIONS. IN ONE SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY FROM 1945 THROUGH 1949. HERE’S A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE. DEFINING CORRUPTION AS A PERSONAL HUNGER FOR STUFFING CASH IN ONE’S POCKET AS AMERICANS OFTEN DO, TO STATE THE ESSENCE OF THE OFFENSE, TO DESTROY PUBLIC TRUST IN THE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT POLLUTION, KILLING SALMON AND WHALES, WE CARE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T CARE, ABOUT TREE CANOPY LOSS, RESULTING IN BIRD POPULATIONS GOING DOWN, WE CARE. AND – – >>THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] BONNIE WILLIAMS IS NEXT. SHE WILL FOLLOW STEPHEN. >>THANK YOU. TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DUTIES OF THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL IS TO PROTECT CITIZEN RIGHTS, AND TO REPRESENT ALL SEATTLE REPRESENT ALL SEATTLE RESIDENTS EQUALLY. THIS BILL WOULD COVER THOSE DUTIES. THE REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER SAID THAT MOST YEARS, THE USE PERMITS ARE APPEALED TO THE HOUSING EXAMINER. THAT MEANS 96 OR 97% DO NOT HAVE APPEALS. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BILL IS TO GET THIS MONEY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING MORE QUICKLY FROM THE BIG DEVELOPERS, AND IN 96 OR 97% OF THE CASES, THERE IS NO APPEAL. THAT MONEY GOES THROUGH DIRECTLY. THIS BILL MIGHT HAVE VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT CLAIMS UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL. EVERYBODY WANTS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE ONLY ONES WHO DON’T ARE THE BIG DEVELOPERS. THEY ARE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS AND THEY HAVE A JOB OF MAXIMIZING PROFITS. >>YOUR TIME IS UP. CAN YOU WRAP UP? SAY THAT WAS A QUICK MINUTE. >>THE CLOCK IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. I DID NOT SPEEDED UP.>>DO NOT START THE TIME YET. WE HAVE MARTIN, AND BONNIE.>>>I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE CHANGES TO SEPA, WITH 119600. THE LAWS WERE DESIGNED FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THERE ARE A LOT OF CATEGORIES INCLUDED IN THESE LAWS. THE CLAIM THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE TRIED TO DELAY THIS PROCESS IS WITHOUT MERIT. I HAVE BEEN TO NUMEROUS PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OPEN HOUSES, THESE HAVE BEEN WHERE I’VE SEEN A LOT OF FALSE NARRATIVES POINTED AT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS AND NAME-CALLING, IT HAS BEEN A DIVISIVE PROCESS. A LOT OF DOORS HAVE BEEN CLOSED DURING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. IF YOU DO AN ANALYSIS, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE A LOT OF MISTAKES BEING MADE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THE CITY CAN LEARN FROM THESE MISTAKES. THE PROCESS TOOK SO LONG HERE, IN THIS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. IT LARGELY IGNORED A LOT OF FEEDBACK TO MODIFY LEGISLATION. CITIZENS ASKED FOR DEVELOPERS TO BUILD MORE HOUSING INSTEAD OF MAKING OPTING OUT MORE ATTRACTIVE, THEREFORE CAUSING DELAYS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT CAN TAKE YEARS TO MATERIALIZE. >>BONNIE, PLEASE WRAP UP. TURN HER MICROPHONE OFF. THANK YOU. >>MARTIN AND JOYCE WILL BE YOUR LAST SPEAKER. >>THANK YOU. WE OPPOSE 119600. SEATTLE HAS BEEN DEALING WITH TRAFFIC CONGESTION RANKED SIXTH WORST IN THE NATION. AND IT IS GETTING WORSE EVERY YEAR. THESE ARE CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPING BUILDINGS WITHOUT PROVIDING GREEN COVER AND GREEN SPACE. BUILDING DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT GREEN SPACE WOULD MAKE ADMIRING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WORSE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROCESS STRENGTHEN, NOT WEAKENED. WE WOULD LIKE TO COUNTER THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. WE URGE YOU TO TABLE THIS MEASURE AND LET THE NEWLY ELECTED COUNCIL LOOK AT THIS AGAIN NEXT YEAR. >>I’M HERE TO IMPRESSUPON YOU THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REFORMS IN 119600 AND TO URGE YOU TO PASS THIS BILL WITHOUT DELAY. AS YOU KNOW, SEATTLE AND OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE STATE FACE A CRISIS OF HOMELESSNESS, HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY. THE SAME TIME, THE INFLUX OF RESIDENTS AND JOBS HAS PUT PRESSURE ON WATER, AND LAND. THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT FOCUSES ON HOUSING AND JOB GROWTH IN HIGH TRANSIT CITIES LIKE SEATTLE. ONE OF THE TOOLS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP HAS BEEN USED TO PREVENT THE CHANGES NEEDED TO REALIZE THIS VISION. THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT THE BILL WOULD URGE TO ADDRESS. REGARDING AMENDMENT FOUR, WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS POLICY CHANGE BECAUSE IT WOULD STRAIN THE ABILITY OF PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED AND BUILT. BUT WE WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE. >>THANK YOU. >>OUR LAST SPEAKER IS JOYCE. [ APPLAUSE ] >>MY NAME IS JOYCE, I AM A RETIRED RESIDENT WHO HAS LIVED HERE FOR 30 YEARS. I HAVE SEEN THE SEPA LAWS PROCESS SINCE THE 90s. WE DID GET ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON OUR BLOCK. NOW WE HAVE A LESSER SCORES OF DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION HERE BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE PROJECT REDUCED FOR MORE PARKING, YES PARKING IS AN ISSUE. THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE APPEAL. SEPA LAW APPEALS ARE OFTEN THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH CITIZENS CAN DO THIS, IT’S DIFFERENT FROM 1995, BUT WE CAN SHOW THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL LITIGATION. SEPA ACCESS TO INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY THE SEATTLE HEARING EXAMINER IS A BALANCING ACT TO THAT OVERWHELMING INFLUENCE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS MEASURE. >>THANK YOU, JOYCE. [ APPLAUSE ] >>THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I AM SORRY TO SHORTCHANGE SOME OF YOU ON THAT MINUTE, IT WAS VERY TOUGH, I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON WITH OUR AGENDA. >>119662, LAND-USE CLAIMS, SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2019. AND ORDERING PAYMENT THEREOF. >>ALL TO MOVE AND PASS THE BILL? MOVED AND SECONDED, ANY COMMENTS? PLEASE VOTE ON THE BILL. >>COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO? O’BRIEN? HERBOLD? PRESIDENT HARRELL? AIDEN WEBER, KNOWN NONE OPPOSED.>>PLEASE READ THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM. >>119600 REVIEW AMENDING SECTIONS 3.102, .035, .070, .100, .440, PORT 448, .45, .80, AND .914 OF THE CODE TO CLARIFY CONTENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND AUTHORIZING DIRECTORS RULES TO CLARIFY DOCUMENTS AND MAKE CORRECTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL PASSING. >>I WILL BE LEADING THE DOCKET. DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS FIRST? >>I WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE BASE LEGISLATION FIRST. WE HAVE FOUR AMENDMENTS. LET US GET THROUGH THE BASE LEGISLATION AND IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE THE PROPOSERS TO ADJUST MANY VALID CONCERNS FROM BOTH SIDES. WE WILL START OFF WITH THE BASE LEGISLATION. >>COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THIS LEGISLATION IS A CULMINATION OF A THREE MONTH PROCESS THAT BEGAN WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, AND A LETTER WAS SENT TO THE COUNCIL WITH A REQUEST TO UPDATE POLICIES IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES TO STATE LAW. TO MAKE THIS PROCESS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. CHANGING THE CODE TO MATCH CHANGE IN STATE LAW. CLARIFYING WHAT PORTIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS APPEALS AND FOR URBAN VILLAGES WITH URBAN CENTERS. I HAVE MET WITH STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS WHO SPOKE EARLIER TODAY WITH DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS. TED HUNTER FROM THE WALLINGFORD COMMUNITY COUNCIL. AND I ALSO AT THE CHANCE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS LEGISLATION. MY COMMUNITY HAS DONE DUE DILIGENCE. AND WITH THOSE WHO HAD AN INTERES IN SEEING THIS PROCESS DONE. WE HELD COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AS WELL. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CLAIMS I’VE HEARD. TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT DO. THIS DOES NOT ELIMINATE CHALLENGES BASED ON PRESENTATION IMPACT. IT DOES NOT ALLOW UNILATERALLY SET RULES AND DOES NOT CHANGE THRESHOLDS FOR DOWNTOWN OR OTHER URBAN CENTERS. TRADING AWAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THAT BUILDING DENSE, FORMAL HOUSING, IT IS NOT CONTRADICTORY, THEY GO DOWN AND IN HAND. ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL WAYS SEATTLE CURTAILS CLIMATE POLLUTION AND SPRAWL. THIS WOULD MAKE SOME HONEST CHANGES TO BETTER REFLECT CLIMATE PRIORITIES. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES IN THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH ME TO OFFER AMENDMENTS IN THIS LEGISLATION AND ISSUES WITH STAFF ON ALL OF THIS WORK. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS WHO ADVOCATED FOR THESE CHANGES AND CHALLENGE THE CITY OF SEATTLE TO MOVE FORWARD AS WELL. I’M HAPPY TO DISCUSS EACH AMENDMENT.>>THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE BASE LEGISLATION. >>I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS. OR COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN. WE’VE LOOKED AT AUTHORIZED CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE INTENTION WAS FOR THE LEGISLATURE THERE? AND THE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR COMMUNITY. WE LISTENS TO THE AUDIENCE AND THE CONCERN ABOUT APPEAL. WE WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ALIGNED WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION. AND ADDRESSING THE LOSS OF APPEAL RIGHTS. >>THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE BILL 1923. ADVOCATES HERE TODAY HAD OUTLINED IT AS WELL. OLYMPIA ACTED IN RESPONSE TO EXAMPLES HERE IN SEATTLE, WHERE THE PROCESS WAS MISUSED AND WEAPON ICED TO HAVE DELAYS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND DIFFERENT PROJECTS RECEIVED THROUGHOUT SEATTLE. WE HEARD EXAMPLES TODAY IN TESTIMONY. FOR THE BULLET CENTER, FOR MHA LEGISLATION, FORT LAWTON, UNTIL SPRING 2021, FOR CITIES TO UPDATE STANDARDS, AS SUCH WE WENT THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS, DOING THE OUTREACH WITH A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE STATE HAS ALLOWED. IT IS NOT TAKING AWAY ANYONE’S AUTHORITY TO APPEAL, OR TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THROUGH, TO CIRCUMVENT ANY OF THESE PROCESSES. RATHER IT STREAMLINES THE PROCESS AND ALLOWS THE BILLS TO MOVE FORWARD IN RESPONSE TO WHAT WE’VE HEARD FROM DIFFERENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES AND GROUPS. >>WHAT ABOUT THE STREAMLINING? WE HEARD TODAY THAT MANY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT APPEAL RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED OR REDUCED. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT? >>THE APPEALS WILL NOW HAVE A TIME LIMIT AND A 30 DAY EXTENSION IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE. 120 DAYS IS THE AVERAGE. THAT’S WHY THE TIMEFRAME WAS SELECTED. WE’VE SEEN APPEALS DRAG ON FOR MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS. SO AGAIN, PEOPLE WILL STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL. WE’VE NOW PUT THE PROCESSES IN PLACE AND THE TIMELINE IN PLACE. THIS APPEALS PROCESS WILL NOT DRAG ON FOR MUCH LONGER. IN ADDITION, WE’VE ALSO ASKED FOR EXAMINERS TO COME BACK IN THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT IS DUE NEXT YEAR. PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS, WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AS A COUNSEL NEXT YEAR, TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.>>COUNCIL MEMBER? >>I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL SOME INFORMATION FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE TIMELINE. I DON’T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE EXAMPLES WHERE THE AMOUNT OF TIME HAS EXCEEDED 120 DAYS. THOSE EXAMPLES ARE TIMES WHEN BOTH PARTIES, THE CITY AND THE APPELLANT AGREE TO TAKE MORE TIME. SO FOR INSTANCE, DURING THE DELAY OF MHA APPEAL, THE HEARING EXAMINER EXPLAINED TO ME THAT ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING THE CITY, HAD SCHEDULED CONFLICTS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE WITNESSES WHO DELAYED THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. THAT EXTENSION WAS A AGREEMENT FROM BOTH PARTIES. WHEN THAT HAPPENS IT IS STANDARD. IT IS VERY UNUSUAL FOR ONE PARTY TO OBJECT. THE FORT LAWTON CASE, THE HEARING EXAMINER EXPLAINS THAT THE CASE WAS DELAYED MOST SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE IT ORIGINALLY REQUIRED FOUR DAYS TO COMPLETE. THE HEARING SCHEDULE COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE THAT BECAUSE THE HEARING SCHEDULE AND OTHER ALREADY SCHEDULED MEETINGS. GIVEN THAT THE CITY AND THE APPELLANT TYPICALLY AGREED TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE AND THIS BILL ITSELF DOES NOT TYPICALLY PROHIBIT THE EXTENSION OF TIMELINES, IT IS UNLIKELY FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER’S PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE BILL WILL HAVE AN ACTUAL IMPACT ON THE TIMELINE. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT IS THE PRACTICE THAT HAS LED TO PREVIOUSLY LONGER TIMELINES. THESE ARE NOT COMMENTS TO OPPOSE THIS PART OF THE BILL. IT IS JUST TO SAY THAT WE HAVE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS BILL WILL ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH. >>COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU IN A MINUTE. IN YOUR RESPONSE, PERHAPS YOU COULD RESPOND TO THIS AS WELL. PART OF MY CONCERN ON THE BASE LEGISLATION IS THAT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WE ARE IN A BETTER POSITION TO PUT OUR NEED AND DESIRE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUT IT WITH A PERSON’S RIGHT TO USE THE APPEALS PROCESS AS HE OR SHE SEES FIT. IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAD BEEN WEAPON EYES, I THINK THAT WAS THE TERM. PERHAPS IT HAS BEEN ABUSED IN RECENT YEARS OR SOMETIME AGO. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EFFECTIVELY USED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ARE INTACT, AND THERE IS AN APPEALS PROCESS FOR A REASON. REALLY, MY QUESTION IS THE PROCESS HERE. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF BUDGET. THEY ARE ASKED TO LOOK UPON SOME PRETTY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION THAT COULD AFFECT SEATTLE FOR YEARS TO COME. I’M TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW LONG YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, HOW MUCH OUTREACH WAS DONE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DELAY THIS UNTIL MORE OUTREACH IS DONE. I DON’T KNOW HOW TIME SENSITIVE THIS IS. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PICK ONE GREAT NEED VERSUS ANOTHER. THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE’VE MADE. I’M TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW LONG WE’VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS. THE BUDGET, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE IT IN THE PROCESS. THAT IS JUST MY PROFESSIONAL CONCERN. COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, SIR. >>I WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THIS BILL DOES. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS, THE PROJECT I WOULD NO LONGER BE REQUIRED. I THINK STOPPING TO ANALYZE RECENT APPEALS THAT CAME THROUGH. ONLY TWO OF THOSE WOULD BE CATEGORICALLY BASED ON THIS LEGISLATION. 6% OF THE APPEALS IN RECENT TIME FRAMES. IT DOES REQUIRE A SHORTENED TIMELINE. IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED, WE OFTEN SEE EXTENDING IT. I THINK PART OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO GET BOTH SIDES TO GET BETTER WITH THAT PROCESS. ATTORNEYS ON THE CLIENT SIDE TYPICALLY HAVE BEEN ON VACATION FOR A LONG TIME AND REQUIRE EXTENDED USE MULTIPLE TIMES. YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT NOT HITTING FOLKS AGAINST EACH OTHER. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR I THINK THREE MONTHS NOW. CLEARING THROUGH THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS. I APOLOGIZE THAT IT IS COMING UP DURING THE BUDGET. LOOKING AT THE CHANCE FOR PUBLIC INPUT. THE REALITY IS HERE. I ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT IS ABOUT BIKE FACILITIES. IT IS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES THAT WE COULD NOT ACT UPON ACT UPON. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE DELAYS IN THE PROCESS. I THINK FOLKS WHO DO HAVE ACCESS OUR ALMOST ALWAYS WEALTHIER AND CAN AFFORD ATTORNEYS. RARELY DO WE SEE UNITIES OF COLOR WITH THESE TOOLS. WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK TO ADDRESS THAT. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN. >>I WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE COSPONSORS. AS YOU HEARD, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR THREE MONTHS. THE MOST INCLUSIVE PROCESS COMING IN. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, WITH THE HUGE LEGISLATION TAKEN ON HERE.>>TALKING ABOUT THE YEAR 2030, OUR KIDS, IF THEY ARE BORN THIS YEAR, IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR US TO TURN THE TIDE ON THE ENVIRONMENT TO PROTECTIONS. ALL OF THOSE ISSUES I THINK WE HAVE IN COMMON IN THESE BODIES AND THIS CITY. WE’VE BEEN ON THE FOREFRONT OF SUPPORTING THE GREEN NEW DEAL. MAKING SURE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRACTIONS ARE NOT USING UNINTENTIONAL WAYS. CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO CREATE TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE. ADVOCATING THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, I THINK THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN WRONGLY USED TO DELAY THE ABILITY TO CREATE A PORTAL HOUSING AND TRANSIT AUCTIONS, AND TRANSIT CORRIDORS THAT GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS. THE RESULT OF THESE PROVISIONS HAS BEEN THAT LESS HOUSING IS CREATED AND A DELAYED TIMELINE, FEWER PEDESTRIAN OPPORTUNITIES, HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN WAYS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN INTENDED. AND RESEARCHER PROJECTS KEY PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT ALLOW FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE MULTIPLE MODALITY NEEDS, AND STAY WORKING ON RETIRING IN THE CITY, THE CONSEQUENCE IS DISPLACEMENT. WE ARE THE THIRD-LARGEST MAKER COMMUTER CITY IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, THIRD IN TERMS OF THE LONGEST COMMUTE TO GET INTO THE CITY TO WORK. AN HOUR AND A HALF AND, HOUR AND A HALF OUT, PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE TALKED ABOUT CARING ABOUT THE BIRDS, THE TREES, THE LAND, DECREASING COMMUTER IDLING AND WATER RUNOFF. THEY CARE ABOUT THE ANIMALS FROM HERE TO THE PUGET SOUND. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IN OUR CITY. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TOOLS THAT ARE BEING USED ERRONEOUSLY. WE USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT CIBA IS USED AS A TOOL TO PROMOTE GREEN LIVING, TO PROMOTE DENSER OPTIONS, TO PROMOTE TREE CANOPY, AND WE CAN SEE OURSELVES MOVING FORWARD ON SHARED GOALS. REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS. PROMOTING BETTER BIKING AND WALKING, FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CITY, TO GET THEM OUT OF THEIR CARS. AND DEALING WITH THE BROADER GOAL OF CREATING MORE FORMAL HOUSING AND TRANSIT OPTIONS, AND A MORE WELCOMING CITY. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT THIS IS ALSO PART OF OUR RESPONSE TO HOW WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CRISIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE GLOBALLY. THERE IS ABOUT 200 MILLION PEOPLE, UP TO A BILLION BEING FORCED TO MIGRATE BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. RISING SEA LEVELS, DESERTIFICATION, DEFORESTATION. THE CRAZY SNOWSTORMS THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE. AND HEAT, AND HERE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST WE HAVE EXPERIENCE SOME OF THOSE, WE NOW HAVE A NEW SEASON, SMOKE SEASON, WILDFIRE SEASON. HERE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST, WE ARE HAVING THE MOST TEMPERATE CLIMATE HERE COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. WE HAVE TO BE A WELCOMING CITY, WE HAVE TO BUILD HOUSING AND TRANSIT, AND INFRASTRUCTURE, IF WE ARE GOING TO BE THAT WELCOMING CITY THAT WANTS TO WELCOME THOSE WHO WANT TO COME HERE FOR A GOOD JOB, CLEANER AIR, ECONOMIC STABILITY, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE CAN CREATE DENSITY AND WITHOUT PREVENTING THE ABILITY OF FOLKS LIVING IN THIS CITY. THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY THAT I AM PROUD TO SUPPORT AND I THINK IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A WELCOMING CITY WHILE MAINTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE VALUES AS WELL. [ APPLAUSE ] >>QUITE INTENSE APPLAUSE ON THAT ONE. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAMUS WANT? >>I WILL BE VOTING YES ON ALL OF THESE PROCEDURES BECAUSE THSE WILL BE A POSITIVE CHANGE. PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS INDICATED THAT SOME OF OUR APPROACHES WILL NOT WORK FOR EVERYTHING. WE’VE MENTIONED THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, A POLICY INTENDED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, IT HAS MOST OFTEN BEEN USED BY THOSE WHO WISH TO CUT RED TAPE. AS A TOOL IT IS IMPRECISE. IT HAS BEEN USED IN A PROGRESSIVE DIRECTION, TO NEGOTIATE BENEFITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE IS A THREAT OF COSTLY DELAYS, SOMETIMES ENOUGH FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO SUCCESSFULLY EXTRACT THE BENEFITS. IT IS MORE OFTEN BEING USED BY SOME ELEMENT TO DELAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND PROJECTS. THE FORT LAWTON PROJECT WAS DELAYED FOR YEARS WITH APPEALS, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND LEGISLATION. AND MORE RECENTLY, SUBJECTED TO AN APPEAL, COINCIDENTALLY THE SAME PERSON WHO APPEALED THE FORT LAWTON PROJECT. AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THESE APPEALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ARE ONLY AS TO SLOW DOWN LEGISLATION. HERE IS ONE QUESTION OUT OF THE 11 PAGES OF THE QUESTIONS PUT FORWARD IN THE CIBA APPEAL. IDENTIFY EVERY EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE OF HOUSING WHO OWNS PROPERTY, NOT ONLY DOES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT THE LEGISLATION THAT WE ARE VOTING ON TODAY RESTRICTS APPEALS, AND PUTS TIMELESS ON SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS. AND BUILDING IN THE INTEREST OF OUR NEIGHBORS, HOW LONG SUCH A BILL CAN BE DELAYED BY APPEALS. WE SHOULD NOT ONLY CONSIDER THE FACT THAT SEPA LAWS ARE NOT BEING USED IN THE WAY THEY ARE INTENDED. BUT ULTIMATELY IT WOULD NO IT WOULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD, BASED ON HOW IT IS ACTUALLY BEING USED, NOT ON THE INTENT OF THE BILL. I STRONGLY SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES AND DEVELOPERS, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE HAD A STRONG RECORD OF DIVORCE I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE WIDE EXAGGERATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE BILL, ON BALANCE. I’M CONVINCED THAT THESE CHANGES WILL DO NO GOOD, THE REALITY IS, TO USE THIS TO DELAY POLICIES AND PROJECTS REQUIRED WILL REQUIRE MONEY AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND TO EMPLOY THIS, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DENIED RESOURCES, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, FURTHER APPEALS HAVE BEEN USED TO DELAY PROJECTS THROUGH DEVELOPMENT, GETTING THAT BALANCE. WE WILL BE VOTING YES ON THE REFORMS TODAY. SAY THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SO WANT. WE HAD DISCUSSION ON THE BASE LEGISLATION. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? >>LET’S GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT AND THE CLOSING REMARKS. >>LET’S GO THROUGH THE BASE LEGISLATION AND THE COMMENTS ON THE PROCESS. AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD. SAY THIS GOES TOWARD COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.>>CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE? >>WE WENT THROUGH THE COMMITTEE AND TALKED ABOUT HEARING EXAMINATION AND ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. AND REQUESTING FUNDING THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES WHAT THE EXAMINERS CAN DO.>>WE WORKED WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THAT.>>THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO. I AM PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. HOW CAN WE PARTICIPATE WITH THIS AMENDMENT? >>WE HEARD LAST WEEK ABOUT STAKEHOLDER EXPERIENCE GOING THROUGH THE HEARINGS, EXPERTISE IN THE PROCESS, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICE, AND WORKING WITH NEW STAKEHOLDERS IN GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS >>INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED INTERESTED IN SPITTING HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS LEGISLATION THEY MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY INFLUENCE WHAT COMES OUT FOR THE HEARING EXAMINER. >>I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE MADE SURE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE ASKED, FOR THE HEARING EXAMINER TO CONSIDER THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE MAKING TODAY. SO FOR THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WILL PASS. COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN, ONBOARD. MOVING TO AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. I BELIEVE YOU ARE OPPOSING? >>THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WANT TO THINK THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR COSPONSORING WITH US, HARMONIZING THE AMENDMENTS FROM LAST YEAR. COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THE WORK PLAN AND ACTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE AS THE BASIS, I’M LOOKING AT HOW WE THINK ABOUT HOW WE MARRY THOSE AREAS FOR MIXED HOUSING OPTIONS. THE COUNCIL MEMBER TALKED ABOUT MIXED-USE HOUSING, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE WORKERS AND HOUSING IN GENERAL. I THINK IT IS A GREAT STRATEGY THAT WE HAVE USED IN OTHER AREAS. MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ADVANCING AND ALSO INCLUDING HOUSING AND MIXED-USE OPTIONS. THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY JUST SAYS LET US HAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY, NOT JUST PIECEMEAL LAND-USE CHANGES.>>I’M HEARING SECTION TEN. >>I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND THE COUNCIL VOTE. >>MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN? IN FAVOR. MEN AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO IS PAST. WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT, NUMBER THREE. >>I MOVE TO AMEND 1196 AS PROPOSED IN AMENDMENT 93. >>SECONDED. >>CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT? >>THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DIRECT SDC I DO ADMIT THIS LEGISLATION REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT. IT REQUIRES THE DRAFTING OF THE ADMINISTERED OF BILLS, BUT ALSO TO HELP THEM DEVELOP THE CREATION OF THOSE RULES. ALSO I THINK THERE IS ONE OTHER THING THAT IT DOES. PUBLISHING THE ADOPTION OF THE RULES IN THE LAND-USE. OR ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS OR EXPLANATION AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE? THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS THIS. >>I AM WORKING THROUGH COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF. I HAVE ASKED DCI TO NOTIFY US OF THE CONTENT BEFORE IT GOES INTO EFFECT. >>QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE? MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NUMBER THREE PASSES LET’S MOVE TO THE LAST ONE, AMENDMENT FOUR. WE WILL ASK COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AGAIN. SENATE’S COUNSEL HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK TO LIMIT PARKING REQUIREMENTS BUT WE HAVE NOT DONE MUCH TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPERS WHO CREATE TOO MUCH PARKING, PARTICULARLY DOWNTOWN. THIS PROJECT INCLUDES 30 PARKING SPACES, REQUIRED AND SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPEAL. I LOOKED AT TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES, ONE WAS FROM 2015, WHERE THERE WAS A REPORT THAT THERE WERE 34 PROJECTS IN THE WORKS THAT INCLUDED A TOTAL OF NEARLY 12,000 PARKING SPACES. HE FOLLOWED UP THAT REPORT IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, THAT REPORT DOCUMENTED THAT IN 2015, IT WAS ALREADY REPORTED TO BE AT CAPACITY, CARRYING 20,000 CARS ON AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY, NOW IT WAS CARRYING 38,000 CARS. THEY ADDED 36% MORE. STATE LAW AND CITY REGULATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE PARKING LOTS WITH 40 FEET OR FEWER PARKING SPACES FROM REVIEW. PARKING LOTS WITH NEWER THIN 40 SPACES WITH FEWER THAN 40 SPACES ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO THIS, EXEMPT REQUIRED ACCESSORY PARKING AND ACCESSORY DEVELOPMENT IN AN URBAN SPACE. THAT MEANS UNDER THEIR INTERPRETATION, RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE NO PARKING SPACES MAY BE EXEMPT FROM REVIEW. THIS AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE IMPACT FROM BUILDING MORE PARKING STUDY, IT DOESN’T INHIBIT INHIBIT THEM, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE REVIEW. PARKING POLICY IS INTENDED FOR SINGLE USE. PARKING HAS BEEN BUILT IN SOUTH LAKE UNION. AND EMPLOYER DOWNTOWN HAS PUT UP ONE OF THE BIGGEST PARKING COMPLEXES IN SEATTLE WITH 2300 PARKING STALLS, TWICE THE PARKING, IN THE SECOND STORY PARKING GARAGE AT PACIFIC PLACE. I AM CONCERNED THAT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO DRIVE. WE ARE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT PARKING POLICY THAT DISCOURAGES THAT. >>VERY GOOD. >>I MOVE TO AMEND.>>MOVED AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION CONTINUES. COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO? >>I REALLY LIKE YOUR INTENTION. I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU ARE GOING. THIS CAN BE REVIEWED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THERE REALLY ARE CONCERNS. I AND IS INTERESTED IN HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK. AS A NEW ANALYSIS, AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS. I LIKE A LOT OF THE AMENDMENTS. IT WAS SENT BY THE NEW DEADLINE. I UNDERSTAND YOU CANNOT SEE IT YET>>THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES YOUR POINT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU SECONDED, IN FACT. THERE IS SOME APPETITE FOR POSTPONING IT THERE MIGHT BE VOTES TO GO UP OR DOWN. LET US KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS. >>I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME BUT I WILL HAVE TO VOTE NO. AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE SEPA REVIEW PROCESS. I HAD A CHANCE TO REACH OUT. WE RECEIVED THE ROUGH ESTIMATE. THERE COULD BE DELAYS IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES. IF THIS AMENDMENT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT, 120 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO REVIEW, WHICH MEANS MORE DELAY. 155 PROJECTS WOULD HAVE COME UP. I AGREE WITH THE UPPER PREMISE THAT THIS WOULD REDUCE WHAT WE ARE ADDING, BUT I THINK WE WOULD LOOK AT MAXIMUMS AS A PART OF THE CONVERSATION. >>THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. >>I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT 85% OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS HAS BEEN LUXURY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE KINDS OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE PROVIDING MORE PARKING THAT IS NEEDED UNDER THE LAW CLAIM TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, THEY ARE LOOKING TO REDUCE COST OF BUILDING HOUSING, BOTH TO THE LOW INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPER AND TO THE TENANT. THIS AMENDMENT I BELIEVE IS VERY UNLIKELY TO ADDRESS AND IMPACT THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS. WE ARE TRYING TO ALLOW FOR THE PUBLIC TO MOVE TOWARD ANALYZING THESE PROJECTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, FROM THE PROVISION OF UNNECESSARY PARKING, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL THAT WE CAN USE TO CHANGE PUBLIC POLICY AS IT RELATES TO THE OVER PROVISION OF PARKING. WE HAVE TO BALANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS BALANCING NEED TO IMPACT PUBLIC POLICY AS IT RELATES TO PARKING DEVELOPING AND THE USE OF SPACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING. SAY THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN IN THE QUEUE, BUT I HAVE THIS VIBE FROM A PHONE THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK. IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. >>YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR. SAY THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT. BUT I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST IT. THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE ARE BUILDING IS TOO MUCH, AND WE SHOULD DRESS THAT. BUT I DON’T THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS, RATHER, I THINK WE SHOULD REVISIT PARKING MAXIMUMS, PERHAPS CONSIDER LOWERING LOWERING THEM AND I THINK THAT IS A SPECIFIC POLICY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL RULES. I DON’T THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL. SAY THANK YOU, YOU CAME IN LOUD AND CLEARLY. COUNCIL MEMBER, CLOSING COMMENTS? ARE WE READY TO VOTE? AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR. THE PARKING SPACES ISSUES MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT, RAISE YOUR HAND. SO I WILL GET ON THAT ONE. TWO OF THE VOTES ARE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, THE EMINENT FAILS. THE AMENDMENT FAILS. >>>I HEARD THE DESIRE TO HAVE THE NEXT COUNCIL. THIS COUNCIL SHOULD WAIT FOR THE NEXT COUNCILS WHAT I’VE HEARD. AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE WORKING AND CONTINUE TO DO OUR JOBS. I AM MINDFUL OF THE URGENT NEED OF NOT JUST HOUSING AND STEWARDSHIP. THAT IS WHY THE VALUE SYSTEM BY WHICH WE HAVE ACTED UPON TODAY. AND WHAT I WILL BE VOTING ON TODAY. FROM A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I HAVE HEARD STORIES ABOUT LEGISLATION BEING DELAYED, FORT LAWTON BEING DELAYED. FOR THOSE OF USE THAT SEPA PROCESS TO DELAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES. AND IT ISN’T UNTIL YOU HAVE TO LOOK YOUR MOTHER IN THE EYE, AND STRUGGLE TO HELP HER FIND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. DO YOU REALIZE THAT THERE IS A PRICE TO BE PAID. AND SOMETIMES IT’S THE CLOSEST TO YOU. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I KEPT IN MIND AS I WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE DELAYED HAVE CONSEQUENCES. THOSE ARE CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE PAID BY THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR COMMUTE. AND FOR ME THAT HAPPENS TO BE MY PARENTS. I THINK MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS COUNCIL FOR HELPING ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND HOPEFULLY úVOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION IN A FEW MINUTES . >>THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD? >>I WANT TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE THINGS I’VE HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I AM CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE WHO I BELIEVE ARE WELL-MEANING, AND DO CARE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT, ARE NOT USING THE SEPA PROCESS. AND HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL. I THINK IT WAS CHARACTERIZED AS COMMON SENSE SEPA REFORM. WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO USE THIS PROCESS TO ASSUAGE THOSE CONCERNS. PERHAPS THEY ARE NOT COMMON SENSE. AND THE DIALOGUE AROUND THIS LEGISLATION WOULD BENEFIT FROM MORE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PUBLIC. THAT BEING SAID. I HAVE ASKED CENTRAL STAFF TO DO A DEEP DIVE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE HEARD IS THAT THERE ARE POSITIVE OUTCOMES FOR SEPA RESULTS. SOME OF THOSE OUTCOMES ARE BETTER PROJECTS . INCLUDING PUTTING THE CITY IN A BETTER POSITION TO DEFEND THOSE PROJECTS WHEN IT GOES THROUGH THAT SEPA HER REVIEW. CENTRAL STAFF DID A REVIEW OF THE 54 CASES THAT WERE AMENDED OR REBOUNDED OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THOSE CASES IS THE TOWERS. WHERE THE EXAMINER AMENDED THE DECISION BASED ON LOADING DOCK MANAGEMENT. IT APPEARS THAT OF THE CASES. 25% TO 54 CASES THAT WERE REVIEWED, AMENDED OR REMANDED TO THE HEARING EXAMINER. NONE OF THOSE CASES RESULTED IN POSITIVE IMPACTS THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS. NONE OF THEM WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM APPEAL IN THIS LEGISLATION. THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS. I DO REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROJECT ACTION AND NON-ACTION THAT MAY NOT BE APPEALABLE. OVER SEVEN YEARS OF APPEALS, CENTRAL STAFF ANALYSIS SHOWED TWO OF THE 32 PROJECT PROPOSALS APPEALED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO TAKE A SEPA UNDER THIS NEW LEGISLATION. UNDER THOSE CASES THE HEARING EXAMINER RULED IN THE CITIES FAVOR. NOT IN THE APPELLANT FAVOR. IN ONE OF THOSE CASES THE APPELLANT WON THEIR CASE BASED ON THE LAND USE INTERPRETATION. NOT THE SEPA ISSUES. THAT WAS ON THE PROJECT ACTIONS. SEVEN YEARS OF APPEALS CENTRAL STAFF ANALYSIS SHOWED FOUR OF THE 22 ACTIONS WOULD POSSIBLY BE SUBJECT TO A WAIVER OF APPEALS UNDER THIS LAW. IN 1-4 OF THOSE CASES IT COULD STILL BE APPEALED TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARING BOARD. I BRING THIS AS CONTEXT AND TEXTURE OF A REVIEW OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS. TO ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT STATEMENT THAT A LOT OF FOLKS ON BOTH SIDE HAVE OVERPROMISED WHAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL REQUIRE. I DO NOT THINK IT IS GOING TO LIMIT THE SEPA APPEALS. AND I DO NOT THINK IT IS GOING TO ELIMINATE SEPA APPEALS. JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES THAT I WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT I’VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC. MANY CONSTITUENTS HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF ABILITY TO USE SEPA APPEAL FOR ECONOMIC ISSUES. THIS LEGISLATION WILL STILL INCLUDE ECONOMIC ISSUES IN SEPA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS. BUT NOT ALLOW FOR APPEAL. THIS GOES BEYOND WHAT THE STATE ALREADY REQUIRES. THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF THE SEPA REVIEW ON ECONOMIC ISSUES . THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAS CHOSEN TO DO EVEN THOUGH THE STATE DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. LASTLY, SOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN WRITING BECAUSE THEY’RE CONCERNED THAT IT’S NOT BEING FOLLOWED THE CODE WHEN IT COMES TO THE TIMELINE OF SEPA CONSIDERATION. THEY PUBLISH THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN COMBINATION WITH THE PERMITS. AND SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE RETIREMENT OF STCI OF PUBLISHING THEIR REVIEW. IT IS THE CITY’S PRACTICE , AND THAT MEANS A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANT NATION WAS PUBLISH WITH THE MASTER USE PERMIT. THE CITY MUST WAIT UNTIL THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ASK BEFORE PUBLISHING THE DETERMINATION. THE CONCERN THAT WE ARE DRAGGING OUT THE DETERMINATION OF ANALYSIS ON THE SEPA PROCESS UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT. AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE GETTING ALL OF THESE DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF APPELLANTS. WHEN THAT THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW. IT’S ACTUALLY NOT TRUE. BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE THAT THOSE THINGS BE DONE TOGETHER. IT WOULD’VE BEEN BETTER IF WE BEEN ABLE TO USE THE PROCESS TO DISPEL A LOT OF THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME AND GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE STUFF RIGHT NOW. >>I THINK WE COULD PUT A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION TOGETHER NOW . >>THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD . ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS ? ANY CLOSING COMMENTS COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN? >>WITH THAT. I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD. I ALSO WANT TO THINK CENTRAL STAFF. FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC WE HAVE AN IMPARTIAL RESEARCHERS AND ANALYSTS TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES AND THE FACTS. AND THEY GIVE US THE FACTS ON PRIOR APPEALS , AND THAT’S A VERY HELPFUL. I TAKE ANY APPEAL PROCESS VERY SERIOUSLY. EVEN WHEN WE HAVE SEEN THE PROCESS ABUSED. ANYONE WITH THE RIGHT TO APPEAL I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, AS AN ATTORNEY. AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THESE ARE REASONABLE CHANGES. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THESE FROM A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES. THE AMENDMENTS STILL MAKE GOOD SENSE TO ME. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT AS WELL. HAVING SAID THAT. [ ROLL CALL ] ON THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDED BILL. >>COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO , COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT , COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD , COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA, COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN , PRESIDENT HARRELL . >> THE BILL PASSES 8-0. >>>PLEASE READ THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. AND I WILL SAY OF FEW WORDS ABOUT . >>I’M GOING TO SIGN UP . >>THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER O’BRIEN. >>>BEFORE THE CLERK READS THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 31911. THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT WE GIVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE AND THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO. HAVING SAID THAT WILL THE CLERK READ THE AGENDA ITEM INTO THE RECORD. >>>A RESOLUTION OPPOSING WASHINGTON INITIATIVE MEASURE 976. AND URGING SEATTLE VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON I-976 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2019 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT . >>I’M GOING TO MOVE IT AND SECOND IT. AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ. I MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 31911. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ WILL YOU PLEASE PRESENT THE ARGUMENT? BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE DOING PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST ? >>I THINK WE WILL HEAR FROM THE COUNCILMEMBER FIRST. WE COULD DO IT EITHER WAY? JUST ONE SECOND. I THINK WE’LL GO WITH COUNCILMEMBER FIRST. >>THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD AND PRESIDENT HARRELL. >>>THIS IS ON THE INTRODUCTION REFERRAL CALENDAR. YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE THE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION. RESOLUTION 31911. URGING SEATTLE VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON I-976 . IF THIS INITIATIVE PASSES IT WILL CRIPPLE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND THREATEN INVESTMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED CONNECTED WASHINGTON, LOCAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS, SOUND TRANSIT, FAIRIES, RAIL, AND FREIGHT MOBILITY. INCLUDING PUBLIC SAFETY. OUR REGION HAS GROWN EXPONENTIALLY. AND MUNICIPALITIES ARE WORKING HARD TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMANDS , PARTICULARLY TRANSPORTATION, IN THE LINCOLN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE. IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN HARD- FOUGHT AND ARE THE IMPROVEMENT OF PARTISAN WORK, AND HERE IN OUR TRI-COUNTY REGION. SOUND TRANSIT IS A VOTER APPROVED, ACCOUNTABLE AUTHORITY THAT PROVIDES MULTI MODAL TRANSIT A CROSSED SNOHOMISH, KING, AND PIERCE COUNTY. THIS INITIATIVE IS FRAMED AS A MONEY SAVER BY RETURNING TO A $30 CARTEL. IT WOULD REVERSE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, INCREASE CONGESTION , DELAY CONSTRUCTION , AND PUT $4 BILLION OF STATE FUNDING AT RISK. THIS INITIATIVE TARGETS PUBLIC FUNDING THAT PAYS FOR SENIORS, VTERANS, CHILDREN, AND THE DISABLED. THE MOST VULNERABLE. I-976 IS ON THE BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. AND I URGE US OUT OF VOTERS AND MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN VOTING NO ON THIS HARMFUL INITIATIVE PRESIDENT HARRELL I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ A FEW COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD. AS YOU KNOW THERE IS A FOUR PAGE RESOLUTION. THERE ARE 11 KEY POINTS. AND FOUR THAT I WANT TO READ INTO THE RECORD FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC. FIRST. AS I-976 WOULD UNDERMINE PROGRESS MADE BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE IN BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT RESPONDS TO THE CHALLENGES IMPOSED BY THE EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH, AND PAST FAILURES TO BUILD A MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT COULD SERVE THE NEEDS OF SEATTLE IN THE 21st CENTURY BY ELIMINATING FUNDING BUS SERVICES, AND NON- HIGHWAY SPENDING. WHEREAS I-976 WOULD REPEAL FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF DISTRICTS IN SEATTLE AND 61 OTHER CITIES ACROSS WASHINGTON STATE. THAT IS LARGELY DEDICATED TO IMPROVING SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO REDUCING CROWDING AND EXPANDING ACCESS TO THE BUS SERVICE. I-976 WOULD ELIMINATE OR REDUCE FUNDING DEDICATED TO LOW INCOME ACCESS AND ORCA PASSES TWO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, SCHOLARS, AND INCOME AUDIBLE MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS. I-976 IS INTENDED TO ELIMINATE 20 BILLION IN EXPANSION OF LIGHT RAIL ALONG THE 2016 SOUND TRANSIT MEASURE. AS I SHARED, THERE WERE 11 AND I PULLED FOUR THAT I THOUGHT WERE VERY IMPORTANT. NOT ONLY FOR MY COLLEAGUES, AND THE PUBLIC. AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PASSES A RESOLUTION 31911. >>THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ. >>WITH ANY COLLEAGUES LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS? WE ARE GOING TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. I’M CHECKING TO SEE IF COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN SPEAK AFTER? >>IS THAT WHAT YOU PREFER? BUT I AM FLEXIBLE BUT I DON’T KNOW IF THE RULES ALLOW US TO DO THAT. RIGHT NOW. WOULD BE A GREAT TIME WHILE I AM GETTING A RULING TO HEAR FROM ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES. COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD? >>AS A NOTED . THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT PROVIDES 350,000 HOURS OF SERVICE. THAT IS A LOT OF HOURS OF SERVICE. THAT HAS RESULTED IN SEATTLE BEING ONE OF THE ONLY CITIES IN THE NATION THAT HAS SEEN IN INCREASE IN TRANSIT USE. IN THEIR REGIONAL MEETING LAST MONTH, I AM A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE. KINNEY COUNTY STAFF SAID THAT SEATTLE COULD LOSE HUNDRED 75,000 HOURS OF BUS SERVICE IN 2020. THAT IS HALF OF THE SERVICE FUNDED BY THE VOTER APPROVED SEATTLE TRANSIT BENEFIT DISTRICT. ONE THIRD OF THE SEA LION SERVICE IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE BENEFIT DISTRICT. I-976 WOULD HARM FUNDING FOR LIGHT RAIL PROJECTS. I REALLY APPRECIATE BRINGING THIS A RESOLUTION FORWARD. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR TRANSIT NEEDS HERE IN SEATTLE . >>THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD. COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT WOULD YOU BE OKAY TO SPEAK NOW AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ? >>THANK YOU PRESIDENT HARRELL. I WILL BE VOTING YES ON THIS A RESOLUTION THAT URGES WASHINGTON STATE OF VOTERS TO VOTE NO ON I-976. NOT ONLY WILL I-976 REDUCE OR ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT AT THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO GREATLY ACCELERATE OUR MEASURES. IT WOULD MAKE THE EXISTING MEASURES MORE REGRESSIVE. IT’S UNCONSCIONABLE . WE ALSO HAVE TO NOTE THAT THE REASON WHY THE RIGHT WING KEEPS GETTING AN ECHO IS BECAUSE OF THE BROKEN TAX SYSTEM. IT IS THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM. IN ADDITION TO OPPOSING MEASURES LIKE I-976. WE NEED A STRONG LEADERSHIP TO FIGHT FOR REVENUE SOURCES. LIKE THE COALITION THAT FOUGHT FOR THE HIGH INCOME TAX. COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD AND I SPONSOR THAT LEGISLATION , IT HAS CLEAREDITS FIRST HURDLE IN COURT. WE NEED PROGRESSIVE REVENUE MEASURES LIKE THAT. TO STOP THE RIGHT-WING FROM GETTING AN ECHO FOR REGRESSIVE MEASURES. IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE STATE OF VOTERS REJECT I-976. >> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER SAWANT. TRENTON? BUT THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. I SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE LEGISLATURE. AND THINGS TO OUR EASTERN WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE. WE FIND OURSELVES ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF VARIOUS ARGUMENTS. BUT IN THE TRANSPORTATION WORLD WE ALL AGREE. WE HAVE SUPPORTED LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE STATE HIGHWAYS. I BELIEVE EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN WASHINGTON HAS RECEIVED BENEFITS FIXING THEIR HIGHWAYS THROUGH PREVIOUS WORK OF THE LEGISLATURE. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SENATOR CURTIS KING. A REPUBLICAN FROM YAKIMA THAT I CAN WORK WITH TO REDUCE CONGESTION HERE AND SUPPORT THE HIGHWAYS FOR HIS CONSTITUENTS. VOTERS IN OUR CITY WANT MORE BUS SERVICE. WE HAVE VOTED FOR LEVEES THAT SUPPORT THAT. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT IF I-976 PASSED THAT FUNDING FOR PAIN FOR ORCA CARDS FOR SENIORS , HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS , VETERANS . I WOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER THAT TO BE IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE CITY TO MAKE TRANSPORTATION AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR ALL. >>THANK YOU. TRENTON. COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO ? >>I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS RESOLUTION. I WANT TO ECHO SOMETHING THAT I’VE HEARD CONSISTENTLY ABOUT OUR REGION GROWING. 1.2 MILLION NEW JOBS, WE KNOW WE NEED INVESTMENT TO KEEP ALL OF THIS MOVING. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS A RESOLUTION. AND I LIKE TO GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY THAT I THINK THAT I-976 IS MALARKEY . >>THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PACHECO . COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA? BUT I THINK IT BEARS REPEATING. MANY FOLKS WHO ARE STRUGGLING ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THEIR CAR TABS. AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE AN UPSIDE DOWN TAX SYSTEM. AS WE WORK TO SUPPORT I-976. WE CALL TO RIGHT SIDE UP OUR UPSIDE DOWN TAX SYSTEM. WE HAVE TO HAVE REVENUE TO INVEST IN TRANSPORTATION AND IN OUR CRUMBLING BRIDGES. WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS REVENUE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR ECONOMY FUNCTIONS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ALLOWING FOR GOODS TO GET TO THE ONLY DEEPWATER PORT ALONG THE WESTERN STATES. A MAJOR HUB OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT RELIES ON US TO HAVE GOOD FUNCTIONING ROADS. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT SOMEHOW . WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT SMALL AND LARGE BUSINESSES HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMUTE. WE HAVE NOT BUILT THE HOUSING THAT WE NEED AND WE NEED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM. WE NEED TO RELY ON THIS REVENUE THAT I-976 HELPS. IF WE SEE THIS PASS WE MUST OPPOSE I-976. I WANT TO UNDERSCORE SOMETHING . THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THREATENING OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. IT’S ABOUT TAKING AWAY THE VERY FABRIC OF THE SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES SERVICES TO SENIORS , VETERANS, CHILDREN, AND THE DISABLED. I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO GET THE WORD OUT THAT IT IS NO ON I- 976. IT’S CRITICAL TO HAVE CLARITY AND NOT CONFUSION. THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ FOR UNDERSCORING OUR COMMITMENT TO GET THE WORD OUT TO VOTE NO ON I-976. >>THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ? THAT CONCLUDES COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE WILL PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE RESOLUTION. THE TOTAL TIME ALLOTTED FOR COMMENTS WILL BE 20 MINUTES. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED AND ALTERNATING ORDER. EITHER FOR OR AGAINST. BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE SIGN UP IN OPPOSITION OF I-976. I WILL START OFF WITH THE OPPOSITION. THEN I WILL GO TO THE SUPPORT. I WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR THE SUPPORT AND I WILL GIVE THEM EQUAL TIME. WE COULD JUST DO TIMMONS. YOU WILL BE CALLED BACK AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE SUPPORTERS OF THE RESOLUTION. TIM EYMAN YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. BUT THIS IS A GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION TELLING VOTERS HOW TO VOTE ON A CITIZEN INITIATIVE. IT IS ARROGANT AND IMPROPER USE OF TAX DOLLARS. VOTERS DO NOT LIKE POLITICIANS TELLING THEM HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE. THIS HAS NOT BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS BEEN A POLITICIAN HEARING. THIS MANIPULATION DOES NOT WORK WITH THE INITIATIVE PROCESS. EVERYONE IN THE STATE GETS TO VOTE ON IT. YOU CAN RANT AND RAVE ALL YOU WANT. YOUR VOTE COUNTS JUST THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER VOTER IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. IT DOES NOT SURPRISE ME THAT THERE IS A PULL OUT THAT SHOWS IF IT PASSES. 70% ACROSS THE STATE AND IT IS LEADING IN SEATTLE. 52% OF SEATTLE VOTERS THAT ARE IN FAVOR ARE NOT GOING BECAUSE THEY LIKE ME. THEY FIND THAT IT IS DISHONEST TO BE TAXING PEOPLE ON THE $10,000 CAR IF IT’S WORTH THE 25,000. THE TAX BURDEN IS REACHING A TIPPING POINT WHERE THEY ARE REALIZING THAT PROPERTY TAXES ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF. THEY ARE STRUGGLING, THEY ARE HAVING A TOUGH TIME. THIS INITIATIVE COMES ALONG, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAD FOR 2.5 YEARS A WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. TO SAY THAT A $10,000 CAR IS WORTH $10,000. THEY DIDN’T DO THAT. FOR 2.5 YEARS VOTERS HAVE BEEN SAYING DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING. WHEN THIS INITIATIVE QUALIFIED IN JANUARY THEY HAD AN ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO FIX THE PROBLEM AND THEY DID NOT. YOU COULD’VE PUT AN ALTERNATIVE ON THE BALLOT AND THEY DID NOT. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING. WHY IS IT THAT VOTING THIS INITIATIVE DOWN. THAT SOMEHOW THEY ARE GOING TO TURN AROUND AND FIX IT NOW. PEOPLE ARE GETTING RIPPED OFF. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. AND THE POLITICIANS ARE NOT DOING A THING ABOUT. THIS INITIATIVE IS THE ONLY WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN FIX THE PROBLEM AND GET RID OF THIS IS DISHONEST TAX. AND COME UP WITH A BETTER SYSTEM THAT IS OF VOTER APPROVAL. >>ON THE SUPPORT SIDE. MATTHEW LAYING. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THEN WE WILL GO TO KELSEY. >>MY NAME IS MATTHEW LAYING, I AM THE LEAD ORGANIZER OF THE TRANSIT UNION. THE COALITION HAS DECIDED THAT I WILL BE THE ONLY PERSON SPEAKING TODAY. IF THERE IS ANY OBJECTION, THEY WILL BRING IT UP. I HAVE BEEN ON THIS CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR A YEAR. I TESTIFIED IN OLYMPIA. I’VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS INITIATIVE FAILS. IT WILL BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL TO ALL PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON STATE. BUS, BIKE, PEDESTRIAN, RAIL. CUTS WILL BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL. THEY USE ALL THOSE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. WORKERS WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF THIS INITIATIVE. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WILL BE CUT AS WE STOP BUILDING ROADS AND FIXING POTHOLES. THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I HAVE BEEN HEARING THAT ENTIRE COUNTIES MIGHT HAVE TO CUT THEIR ENTIRE BUS SYSTEMS BECAUSE THEY RELY SO HEAVILY ON THE TRANSIT OF THE DISTRICT. WE SUPPORT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP OUR ORCA OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM. AND THAT WE KEEP THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY PROGRAM TO BRING TRANSIT TO UNDER SERVED POPULATIONS. CURRENTLY 53% OF ALL CARBON EMISSION AND OUR CITY IS COMING FROM PASSENGER VEHICLES, AND TRUCKS. ALLOWING ANY CUTS TO BUS SERVICES WOULD BE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO OUR STATE ADMISSION GOALS. IN THAT THE TRANSIT RIDERS UNION SUPPORT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL IN DENOUNCING I-976. PLEASE VOTE YES ON RESOLUTION 31911 . >>KELSEY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? DREW? STEVE? >>VOTE NO ON I-976 . >>RACHEL BROWN? >>JOYCE? I POORLY DESCRIBE THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. I PUT THE OPPOSITION AT A DISADVANTAGE. I ASSUMED YOU WERE ALL SPEAKING BECAUSE YOU HAD SIGNED UP. I THINK IT’S APPROPRIATE THAT WE GIVE TIM EYMAN ANOTHER MINUTE. THEN WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER MINUTE TIM EYMAN? >>I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LAYING OUT THE RULES. AND I’M GRATEFUL FOR THAT. I THINK THE BASIC POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE. IF IT WAS A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT WAS GOUGING PEOPLE, TAKING MORE MONEY THAN WHAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SHUT THEM DOWN. BUT BECAUSE IT’S THE GOVERNMENT TAKING MORE MONEY THAN THEY SHOULD FROM THE TAXPAYERS. ALL WE ARE GETTING IS EXCUSES. YOU SAY DOESN’T MATTER IF IT’S DISHONEST OR ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED. WE ARE DEALING WITH THE STATE THAT HAS A 3.5 WE ARE DEALING WITH THE STATE THAT HAS A $3.5 MILLION SURPLUS THAT COULD BACKFILL ANY EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. GET RID OF THE DISHONEST TAX AND TRANSITION TO A SYSTEM THAT IS MORE FAIR THEY HAVE TO GET VOTER APPROVAL AND USE KELLY BLUE BOOK. SO IF A $10,000 CAR IS GOING TO BE TAXED IT WILL BE TAXED AT A $10,000. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. WHAT I FIND INCONCEIVABLE YOU CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY UPSET, AND THEY ARE UPSET BECAUSE THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT ACKNOWLEDGING A PROBLEM. INSTEAD YOU’RE SAYING JUST TAKE IT BECAUSE WE ARE USING THE MONEY ON GOOD STUFF. MOST PEOPLE THINK IF IT IS A DISHONEST YOU SHOULD BE IMPOSING IT . >>THANK YOU TRAN 20 . >>WITH THE SUPPORTERS LIKE ONE LAST BITE OF THE APPLE? >>I DOES HAVE ONE MORE THING TODAY TO SAY. I WOULD HAVE TO PAY $450 IN CAR TABS FOR MY NEW CAR. I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND I BELIEVE THAT ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION IS A BIG MARKER. IF YOU DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION YOU CANNOT GET TO WORK OR AROUND THE CITY. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE IN OUR CITY. >>I’M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE’VE HAD AMPLE COMMENTS. I’M GOING TO PREPARE THIS FOR A VOTE. >>>ALL IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING RESOLUTION 31911. OPPOSED? THE RESOLUTION HAS PASSED. >>>PLEASE READ THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM INTO THE RECORD. >>AGENDA ITEM 3. CB 119288. >>THE MAYOR’S OFFICE CONTINUES TO COORDINATE OUTREACH . I HAVE REMINDED THE MAYORS OFFICE OF THE LETTER FROM MAY 14. WHERE WE WERE URGED TO PASS COUNCIL BILL FOR THE PROPOSED HATE CRIME LAW. SOME OF THE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS THERE MAY BE SOME RELATED WORK THAT TIES IN WITH THE BUDGET. CONSEQUENTLY I AM MOVING TO HOLD COUNCIL BILL TRANTER WENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY TRANTER WENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25. >>SO WE WANT TO HOLD THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL NOVEMBER 25. IS THERE SECOND? ANY COMMENT? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNTIL NOVEMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNTIL NOVEMBER 25. >>ANY OTHER BUSINESS? >>I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO BE EXCUSED BEGINNING NEXT MONDAY, OCTOBER 14 THROUGH JANUARY 27 OF 2024 PARENTAL LEAVE. INCLUDING 12 WEEKS OF PARENTAL LEAVE AND TWO WEEKS OF COUNSEL RECESS. I LOOK FORWARD TO JOINING YOU ALL IN JANUARY . >>I SECOND THAT MOTION. >>I’M NOT SURE I CAN LEGISLATE SOMETHING INTO NEXT YEAR. >>WHY DON’T WE JUST DO PARENTAL LEAVE THROUGH THE END OF THIS YEAR . >>THIS IS HISTORY MAKING. I AM GOING TO DO IT TILL DECEMBER 16. >>I CAN GO ALL THE WAY INTO JANUARY? >>AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. >>IT WAS MORE OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT APPARENTLY. THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE THAT I WILL BE TAKING LEAVE. >>WE WILL LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS ASKED FOR LEAVE. AND WE WILL WORKED THROUGH THE LOGISTICS OFF-LINE. >>I WISH ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES THE BEST OF LUCK THIS FALL. INTO THOSE THAT ARE NOT COMING BACK. IT WAS AN HONOR TO WORK WITH YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE. IN MY TWO YEARS OF WORK. I WILL BE BACK. IF EVERYTHING GOES CORRECTLY FOR POTENTIALLY A BUDGET VOTE OR TWO. AND THE END OF NOVEMBER. SPOKE IT IS BEEN MY PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU. AND I WILL REACH OUT TO. AND I WILL SEND YOU A MESSAGE SAYING COMING BACK WHEN THE BABY IS ASLEEP SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH THE BUDGET. I APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR STAFF GIVING US YOUR PRIORITIES. YOU WILL NOT BE OUT OF THE LOOP VERY FAR . >>>>THANK YOU. I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT MY PRIORITY IS BEFORE HEADING OUT ON FAMILY LEAVE. NO GUARANTEES ABOUT BEING ABLE TO COME BACK. I AM GRATEFUL THAT THE COUNCIL RULES WERE AMENDED. AND THAT IF ANYBODY, THAT IF ANYBODY WANTED TO USE FAMILY LEAVE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL SOON. >>WITH THAT WE STAND ADJOURNED. EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT REST OF THEIR DAY.

2 Comments

  • DeAndre Enrico

    We have a homelessness crisis in this city and nation. Blocking and/or slowing down construction of affordable housing and housing first projects will serve to continue to plunge our region further into crisis. And the same people who are worried about how much light their downtown condo is getting will be complaining about and demonizing homeless people and drug addicts.

    We need housing first, and a glut of services. We can NEVER develop a working housing first system when affordable housing is being blocked and slowed down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *