meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0067 | Speaker 5: Her 19 is a report from Technology Services and Financial Management with with recommendation to exit contracts with federal CIGNA Signals Safety and Security Systems of University Park, Illinois for the furnishing and delivering a video, surveillance cameras and related system components the amount not to exceed 500,002nd.
Speaker 2: The other was moved and seconded. Any public comment? No council comment. There is a council membership scheme.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. In terms of where these are going to be placing them. Mr. West, you and I were talking about this today. Is is the department going to the police department going to solicit some requests for locations? Because we know in the Ranchos area, as I mentioned, because of the high fences, people, cats, they can't see out in the street and we're having a number of auto burglaries. And they actually did request if we could have some cameras placed in the area. So is that is that something that's going to be entertained?
Speaker 0: We can certainly have.
Speaker 9: The police department reach out to each of the nine council districts to see where the council districts think these would go. But again, the bottom line, these are for crime and law enforcement. So.
Speaker 8: Yes, well, we have a number of crimes being committed. So if this could help the department, we certainly, certainly will.
Speaker 0: Reach out.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Let's just do me a favor. Don't put them in front of my my house or my window with that. Why? Why? Well, a lot of reasons with that. I didn't want moved in second in any public comment on item number 19. I know public comment members cast your votes. I am a yes. And item number 19, item number 20, the clerk will read.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Austin, please. The motion carries a vote yes. Employees report from Technology, Services and financial management with a recommendation to contracts with recommended firms to provide as needed professional and technical services related to systems analysis, systems, systems development and implementation, project management and technical support for IT projects and systems in amount not to exceed $950,000. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB TS-14-025 and authorize City Manager to execute contracts, and any additional amendments thereto, with Federal Signal Safety and Security Systems, of University Park, IL (not an MBE, WBE, SBE or Local), Halifax Security, Inc., of Brick, NJ (not an MBE, WBE, SBE or Local), and Convergint Technologies, of Orange, CA (not an MBE, WBE, SBE or Local) for furnishing and delivering video surveillance cameras and related system components, in a total amount not to exceed $500,000; and increase appropriations in the General Services Fund (IS 385) in the Technology Services Department (TS) by $500,000. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01142014_14-0042 | Speaker 1: Item Voice Communication from Councilwoman Jeri ships key recommendation to buy motion of the City Council Request City Manager to arrange a presentation by the winning team of the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks Southern California Real Estate Challenge.
Speaker 6: Great Council member ships key.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Pro tem not the correct.
Speaker 6: No, it's just a council member, but.
Speaker 7: A council member. We have an exciting opportunity to take a look at an exciting plan that has just been developed. The NAACP, which is the commercial real estate organization each year, has a contest between USC and UCLA in their graduate schools and includes their real estate, includes their public policy people, and the winners of those then get to make the presentation and be judged on it. This year they actually designated the property at Second and PCH as the subject matter for this contest, and the winners came up with something that they are calling Belmont Yards. And what I'm just asking is that the city council get the opportunity. Several of us were invited to come up when they did present this and to watch their presentation. But I think it would really be exciting for this council to see the full presentation. I've talked to the city manager about this, and so what I'm asking is make a motion if we can request the city manager to contact the winning team. It certainly was not my alma mater, that one, but it's they really came through with an incredible design. So I make that motion second.
Speaker 6: Moving in second. Moving in second. Any public comment on this item? A single public comment. Members cast your vote on item number four. I'm a yes.
Speaker 1: Bush and Kerry.
Speaker 6: Item number five, Madam Clerk. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to, by motion of the City Council, request City Manager to arrange a presentation by the winning team of the 2013 National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) Southern California Real Estate Challenge. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01142014_14-0004 | Speaker 1: I don't know. Five is a report from Development Services recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54 relating to billboards read and adapted as read.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Any council comment on item number five? Which is just to clarify to city management. This is the item we heard last week, correct? Yes. The move forward on this week and as I understand it, the city attorney had some issues with us on a couple of different fronts that you want to elaborate on those now or did you want to hear council comment first?
Speaker 8: Councilmember O'Donnell, members of the city council, as you know, or as was explained, this is actually back to you on second reading. It was here last week. You had some suggested changes to the ordinance which we made on Wednesday morning and presented to the city clerk. And those changes, as I thought that they were articulated, I think, by Councilmember DeLong, who made the motion, were presented to the city clerk, and that was what was out for circulation. Since that time, the city attorney's office and I think maybe most of all the council people received a copy of a letter from one of the attorneys that represents one of the billboard companies who took issue with the way it was done procedurally, number one. And number two took issue with the way that we formulated what I thought was council's direction relative to posting of a cash bond in the event that they were going to take down billboards. We there was a concern that if the wards were removed and the new billboard was going to go up, that the old billboards go down first. We made it the language more flexible so that they would they had the option of either removing the old billboards first before constructing a new billboard, or the city would impose a cash bond after consideration during the copy process by the Planning Commission and then the City Council on Appeal. At any rate, the attorney took issue with the procedure, and I have to admit that the attorney is correct. And what our municipal code says is that if changes or substantive changes are made on the floor, those substantive changes have to be in writing and specific reference made to the line in page number where changes are made. That was not done. So our suggestion is that either tonight be treated as a first reading if you have no further changes to the ordinance, or if there are further changes to the ordinance from what is in the text in front of you that the matter be put over, I believe till February 4th we would bring it back for first reading and incorporate any changes that you might make or direct us to make tonight. And that concludes our staff report.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you. And I know other council members want to comment, but I do have a comment. I think my concern is in hearing the different companies and knowing that our goal is probably twofold. It is to take down billboards mostly in the inner portion of the city, not so much along the freeways, I would think, but mainly along the inner parts of our city. And maybe to if we can even achieve some revenue generation here. And that would be done through a development agreement, I assume. Is that correct, mister?
Speaker 8: Cities are really the only way that it could ever be. Revenue generating for the city is if there were development agreements. The way the ordinance is currently drafted, in some circumstances a development agreement would be possible, and that is if one of the involved companies could demonstrate to us that it was infeasible for them to comply with the cap and trade portion of the ordinance and that there were no other non-conforming billboards left in the city for removal. So the possibility is there. But what we anticipate, if the ordinance works correctly, is that the companies would participate in cap and trade. In other words, they would take down billboards in exchange for being able to put up a new billboard or an electronic billboard rather than participate in a development agreement.
Speaker 6: The cap passes is the trade part. That's that's a little more difficult. Difficult because we can't compel the companies to trade among each other. Correct.
Speaker 8: And you can't compel them to do that. But it's our understanding, I believe staff's understanding that that it does happen in other jurisdictions. But that goes into the factor of feasibility. I think what we discussed last week is let's say you had a company that didn't have enough billboards available to participate in cap and trade. What we anticipate they would do under the ordinance is contact their competitors, see if the competitors had any interest in selling billboards or partnering with that other company to do a cap and trade. If the other billboard companies said, No, we're not interested in that, we would expect that that. Would be reported back to us, hopefully in writing, and we would take that into consideration in determining whether or not it's in feasible and if if no one wanted to participate or allow the sale of their billboards, if they had a large inventory, staff could make the recommendation to the Planning Commission that it was infeasible and they should therefore be allowed to apply for a development agreement.
Speaker 6: Okay. So my concern is that one company might be locked out of participating in this in the trade component. So if they couldn't trade does the current language that sits before us now, does it allow them to go to the planning commission and say, we couldn't we couldn't find an avenue to take down other signs?
Speaker 8: Right. If they if they do not have an inventory that would allow them to participate, then they could apply for a development agreement that would be put before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission would make a finding on whether or not it was feasible for them to comply. They'd have to demonstrate that they didn't have an inventory and that they reached out to other carriers to see if the other carriers would sell them inventory or, like I said, partner with them. And if they reported back to the Planning Commission that they tried to buy inventory or trade for inventory and it wasn't successful, then the Planning Commission would be in a position to at least make a finding that it was infeasible and recommend to the city council that a statutory development agreement be entered into.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. Could that include revenue sharing?
Speaker 8: Most definitely. With a with a development agreement. It's a quid pro quo type situation. The one that comes to mind that the council is probably most recently familiar with is Douglas Park, where we entered into a statutory development agreement with Boeing. On Douglas Park. They provided money for our housing trust fund and did some other things park related that made it worthwhile for the city to do a development agreement.
Speaker 6: Well, given that those signs along the freeway are quite valuable. Well, how does the trade system work? Is it is it based on value or is it based on number of signs? Why would someone trade a freeway sign away? I think that's the challenge that we're hearing is out there. There's a company that owns a limited number of signs. Are they going to be able to participate? Well, the.
Speaker 8: Way the ordinance the way the ordinance was brought back to you in the way that it was presented to you for first reading all of those signs along the freeway would be considered nonconforming signs. And the goal, the overarching goal of the ordinance, as stated in the ordinance, is to remove nonconforming signs. So if you adopted the ordinance as it's presently constructed, then the folks that own those signs along the freeway, if they wanted to build a new digital billboard, for instance, in some allowable place in the city, we would first require them to remove those billboards that they have based on the formula that's currently in the ordinance, either 6 to 1 or eight or. Yeah, either 6 to 1 or 8 to 1, depending on what they were doing.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmember Sheepskin.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. I think the question again needs to be discussed, and that is, is there any way particularly and I think that's what Mr. O'Donnell was getting at, is that you've got our goal this here on the council is to get rid of billboards, quite honestly. And so I think any way that we can fashion this ordinance to do that with all the parties involved, I think helps everybody. And so what I get back to that that item that I think we talked about last time, and that was the issue of being able to make some provisions in the language. I think it's Section 21.50 4.12 development agreements. Mr. MAYES. And I know we have this back and forth on it, but again, I would ask the question, could we not put language in there that would exclude billboards and landscape freeway segments because that obviously targets a particular company and then provide that the they have to remove at least one billboard within the city to be able to participate in this development agreement process.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Sheepskins It's very difficult for us to analyze because quite frankly, we don't know what the business practices are of all of these companies. We've certainly received contact from all of the companies that we're aware of that operate within the city. I spoke with the attorney for one of the companies today who indicated very clearly to me just before the meeting started that if we did anything to the ordinance that gave one company a competitive advantage over another company, that they would sue and challenge the ordinance that it was being unfairly administrated because we have actually carved out something for one company that that is not available to other companies. Now, whether that would happen or not, I don't know. But that's what they represented.
Speaker 7: Realizing that. Mr. Mays, what about if we had the option of a development agreement or the cap and trade so that there's the two possibilities because that way that that is actually equal in terms of the pool of available companies.
Speaker 8: So yes, we could probably we could fashion an ordinance where you could have a situation where they could choose to voluntarily participate in cap and trade or enter into a development agreement. But that really is a policy decision for the city council, because what's staff's investigation determined and Amy can elaborate on this probably better than I can , is that the companies would prefer to keep their signs and enter into development agreements. So if that were the case, then the goal that you mentioned at the beginning of your discussion of removing billboards, it's possible that that would not occur.
Speaker 7: If both scenarios were provided so that they could participate under it. Either way. I mean, how do they know that? How do we know that? Or if just we focus in.
Speaker 3: With.
Speaker 7: The majority of the ones that we obviously want to remove are in the residential areas. I think that's the policy consensus. What about the ones that are just simply along the freeways? That's an entirely different landscape.
Speaker 4: Council members, we've structured this ordinance and have focused the ordinance on treating this as one single land use. As I said at last week's meeting, we deal with things on a land use basis irregardless of where they're located. So when we deal with drug stores, we don't treat Walgreens differently than Rite Aid is, regardless of whether they're located on an arterial corridor in North Long Beach or an arterial corridor in East Long Beach.
Speaker 7: So this would be a policy decision and of the council if it decided to. Has Mr. Mesa give us the opportunity to have people or companies participate, either under a cap and trade or a development agreement? Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct. What we're suggesting is that since the ultimate goal is the removal of non-conforming billboards, that there is a situation written into this that allows development agreements to occur. It does allow. It does require a little bit of due diligence by the billboard companies. But it is feasible for them to enter into development agreements. But it still allows a company who does not wish to be in a development agreement situation to just move on to the cap and trade. A development agreement is going to take an extensive amount of time. It does require its own seek law review, whereas the cap and trade would not. So the expectation that a development agreement would be a quicker avenue is not likely to be realized because of the difficulties in negotiating a development agreement.
Speaker 7: Okay. Before I make a motion, is it possible there's other council members, but then we can come back and maybe hear a response from the public.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Any further council comment? See? No further council comment. Why don't we go to the public? Any public comment on this item? Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Mr. Dale, do you mind if I have a moment for the public talks, if I may.
Speaker 6: Yes, you can have a more.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. Short on the trigger there. Mr. Mayes, two questions. One is I understand that there's been some conversations with the city attorney's office and perhaps development services staff, but some modifications to the spacing might be appropriate. I'd just like to hear that before public comment. So if there are any comments that the billboard companies would like to make, I'd like to hear what they have to say.
Speaker 8: I think Amy can run through. We've had a request from one of the companies who basically believes that the way the ordinance is currently structured, you can have a situation where you would actually have billboards that were too close to one another. And one of the companies suggested that we have some spacing requirements and Amy can run through what those requests were.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you, Mr. Potter.
Speaker 4: Certainly councilmembers. If you turn to table 54.1 excuse me, 54, dash one. On page 14 of your revised ordinance, there is a table called Billboard Development Standards. Under the fourth column spacing between billboards, we would leave the spacing requirements the same for item number one. For item number two, we would change the spacing to be at least 300 feet between poster size boards and at least 500 feet between bulletin size boards. The same change would be made for row three, the conversion of existing billboards to electronic and the same change would be made for row four. So it would be a 300 foot minimum spacing requirement between posters and a 500 minimum foot spacing requirement between bulletins. This issue was also raised last week by one of the companies during the public comment.
Speaker 9: Thank you. That's it.
Speaker 6: Okay. Let's hear from the public.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Mike Murchison. Council member. Other council members. I used to call on the mayor or the council member now, but I'm here tonight on behalf of Regency and I just want to clarify a couple of things that may have been a little bit confusing from last Tuesday. One of the things that you have to understand with Regency.
Speaker 6: Is their whole all the.
Speaker 2: Billboards that they have, which are nine structures, are all on the freeways. That's their entire inventory. Okay. In one scenario, whereas the other major companies are in Long Beach, have also along the freeway and in the residential area. So in the scenario that you're talking about, if you're asking Regency to remove them, you're asking Regency to remove the ones that are most valuable to them and that wipes out half of their inventory. But again, that's all they have. They're not in the residential areas, whereas if you ask the other billboard companies, do they have freeway adjacent billboards? The answer is.
Speaker 6: Yes, at least for most.
Speaker 2: Of them. Okay. So it's not an ordinance that's focus just on one company. It's an ordinance. So when you look at the proposed draft language that you all have talked about, it's something where you're basically saying that freeways are not our focus. Our focus is the residential communities. So I'm asking you to consider that very strongly tonight. When you look at that.
Speaker 6: That you look at what the impact would be, freeways versus the residents.
Speaker 2: The residents are not the ones that complain about freeway billboards. They're complaining about the billboards are in the residential communities.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. A question for city attorney. And again, I agree. I don't want to talk about one company, two companies. Three companies. I want to talk about location. So could you address only those signs on freeway landscaped areas or or whatever definition you might have separately from those and the and the other portions of the city?
Speaker 8: We'd have to legally you may be able to do that, but the ordinance, the way it's structured.
Speaker 6: Tonight, I realize tonight does.
Speaker 8: Not do that. But if you want us to to give us direction to look at that, we certainly could or look at a situation where you're only focusing on residential billboards. You could do that. But we have to have a rational basis for doing that. And without knowing what the what the relative stock is, as between the freeway oriented ones and the residential ones I couldn't give. Amy may have an idea, but.
Speaker 4: It depends on whether you're talking those prohibited in the landscaped buffers or those along all freeways. There is a difference and we would need to understand what the crux of the issue is for the city council. There are areas along the freeway that can be developed with billboards now. There are also areas along the freeway where companies who would have a non-conforming billboard can use Caltrans credits and go around the city's policy and create digital billboards using their Caltrans credits and not having to deal with the cap and trade or a development agreement at all. So the way the ordinance is structured, we would need a little bit of input on whether you're talking about the landscape buffers along the freeways or whether you're talking about all freeway billboards.
Speaker 6: Why don't we talk about landscape freeway areas? If we just address that portion.
Speaker 4: If we just address that portion. We may have. Somewhere around 20 billboards out of 350 within the city.
Speaker 6: So not a large portion?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 6: And again, we're not speaking about one company here. So. Okay. Thank you. I believe this further is a further public comment.
Speaker 3: So please.
Speaker 6: Come forward. Any members of council? My name is Richard Montgomery. I'm government affairs director for Lamar Advertising.
Speaker 2: As most of you know, Lamar has the majority of billboards in the city. That is 143. 95% of those are all in residential neighborhoods. We have no billboards or zero along the freeway.
Speaker 6: Make that clear from a get started.
Speaker 2: We also completely support the staff proposal as written. However, any deviation, any changes that would benefit one company and the other, we completely oppose. So tonight we're talking about equality all the way around. We simply ask that you treat all the companies equally across the board. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. Man. I don't believe there's any more public comment, sir. Come down. This will be the last speaker on this topic. Unless there's anybody else who needs to speak. No, this will be the last speaker.
Speaker 2: My name is Lee Chaucer. And I have to confess, I'm sort of a newcomer to this issue. And I was wondering, what is your main focus? I notice sequel has to do with.
Speaker 7: Environmental protection for the public, and I was wondering whether your criteria was whether or not.
Speaker 2: These billboards.
Speaker 7: Along the freeway were.
Speaker 2: Distracting.
Speaker 7: To motorists who might get involved in a car accident because possibly.
Speaker 2: The glitter.
Speaker 7: And the glamor of the new electronic.
Speaker 2: Billboards is in effect, or.
Speaker 7: Whether.
Speaker 2: It's just in the communities themselves. The old type of billboards seem to.
Speaker 7: Be rather passé and.
Speaker 2: Don't make the community look as hip and Vegas.
Speaker 7: Like or.
Speaker 2: Whatever. So I'm just asking.
Speaker 7: Kind of like four criteria.
Speaker 2: In regards to.
Speaker 7: These proposals and these.
Speaker 2: Laws.
Speaker 3: And so forth.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, sir. Well, the council directive, in short, was to have staff develop a policy wherein we could take down billboards across the city. So that's what we're trying to shape here tonight and stay within the bounds of the law.
Speaker 7: So what what are the.
Speaker 2: Criteria for taking them down? Well.
Speaker 6: You know, to we can't have a give and take right now, but I can direct you to city management after after the council discusses this matter and go to you can have further conversation. But right now, you and I can't it's not a place for you and I to engage in, give and take discussion. We discussed this last week for about an hour, probably more than an hour. So I invite you to always watch that on my record as well. Thank you. All right, there. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Council membership scheme?
Speaker 7: Yes. And actually, sir, that's this ordinance that we're trying to get through would set out those requirements as to how billboards, wire billboards would be taken down and where. I'd like to make a motion and ask that this matter be referred back to the city attorney to come back to the council with. Wording that can be placed into the ordinance that takes into account that there are billboards and landscape freeway segments. And I know, Mike, if I can just regression, you can help me with the motion to be of of be mindful of the fact that we do not in any way want to craft anything that favors or dis favors any particular business that we're what we're seeking is to get the billboards removed predominantly out of the residential areas. But certainly any new billboards that would be along these areas obviously have to conform with the requirements that we're going to set.
Speaker 3: So I know.
Speaker 7: The motion would be to refer this matter back to the city attorney because you said you'd have to look at you'd have to look at the language. You said there's 20 potential billboards this. He's his.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no. But the landscape. Yeah. So.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Chayefsky, if I understood you, one of the things that we could look at, if it's the desire of the city council not to focus on those 20 billboards, I think Amy said there were 20 in the landscaped areas of the freeway. One way to address that, although it would defeat to a certain extent the overarching purpose of the ordinance, but you could do it would not would be to not count those signs as being non-conforming. So they would not factor into the equation when we say you have to remove nonconforming signs. None of one way to approach it is say, okay, for purposes of this ordinance, they are not non-conforming. So we wouldn't say, okay, you've got six non-conforming there. You need to take them down like individually.
Speaker 2: But but well.
Speaker 8: They could they could in theory upgrade them to digital if they were located in an area that they under the criteria.
Speaker 6: That that's the danger when you do that there's because someone overnight drop a digital in.
Speaker 8: That's right.
Speaker 6: So we don't want that. Well, that's why I think her approach was for that area. Have a dual.
Speaker 7: Yes. Does it be able to have that dual way of also publishing our goal, and that is to remove barriers. You know.
Speaker 8: So so not require them to factor it into the non-conforming status, but also have a prohibition against converting those 20 billboards to digital.
Speaker 7: Is that. No, no, no, no. That's not the two opportunities to be able to participate in the program. One would be cap and trade and the other would be through a development agreement.
Speaker 8: So for those 20, they would be eligible to apply for a development agreement and they would not count towards non-conforming. Yes.
Speaker 3: It would. You know.
Speaker 6: I think you take the non-conforming piece and cut it off right there. I don't think we need to speak to non-conforming. I think I think what she's saying in Miami is she wants a dual track for those signs that are in freely landscaped areas.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. I think and and best motion with you coming back, because obviously we want to make sure it's legally sound and it would would pass muster. So we can't craft this obviously on the floor. So that would be helpful if you could then bring that back.
Speaker 4: May I ask a clarifying just to make sure that we understand the direction and I do apologize for this. So we would we as staff would go out and verify the number that are within the landscape, freeway buffers. And we're only talking about the landscape freeway buffers and we would determine whatever that number is, regardless of who owns them. And we would we would make it so that they are still non-conforming billboards, but that those are they are specifically eligible for a development agreement for conversion to electronic. Is that your direction?
Speaker 7: Excellent. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: And is there a minimum take down ratio that would be a minimum floor.
Speaker 7: Thing, at least one. And certainly we can get some guidance on that from staff. But I think, you know, at least one.
Speaker 4: At least one within the same landscaped freeway area.
Speaker 7: And one non-conforming.
Speaker 8: And councilwoman ships key. Does your motion include the spacing that we talked about earlier to certainly increase the spacing.
Speaker 7: The other components in place, simply figuring if we can do this.
Speaker 8: Those were the spacing that was brought up by Councilmember DeLong and Amy.
Speaker 7: ARTICULATE Exactly. And I understood we were going to have that in there anyway. Yeah. Regardless of the motion. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 4: So as I understand it, we will survey and make sure we know what the universe of freeway landscape buffer billboards are. Those billboards would still be considered non-conforming. They would have the right to enter into a development agreement with a bare minimum removal of at least one of those non-conforming billboards for the benefit of conversion. And the spacing that I read into the record would be included 300 feet between poster size and 500 feet between bulletin size in table 54. Dash one. Anything else?
Speaker 7: No, that sounds. And certainly in returning that to us with an analysis as to if you can, the impact, it's hard to do this on the floor about really getting a sense of what the impact would be by making that change. So if we could have that as well, when you returned to us with the language. So that would be my motion.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Sir.
Speaker 6: Any further council comment. Oh, you need you need a second. And Mr. Larson. Son of Mr. Neal seconds seconded by Neal. Motion by Chayefsky seconded by Neal. Any further council comment? Council members alone.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Okay, a couple of things. First of all, you included the space requirements. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mace, I know that one of your concerns had to do with legally defensible and so forth. Are you comfortable with this approach? I know you need to spend a little more time with it, but is this something that you think you can work with?
Speaker 8: Yeah. What we'll be looking at is if by doing this, does it give one company some sort of a competitive advantage? And if it does not, I'll be comfortable with it.
Speaker 9: Okay. And you'll let us know when it when it comes back?
Speaker 8: You know, the other issue that we didn't discuss and maybe you could give us direction on it tonight is one of the things that you included last week, which we did make this change was there was the discussion about the cash bond.
Speaker 9: Performance bond yet. And let me just say that I know that your response wasn't exactly what I requested, but but I think that it certainly met the spirit of what I was looking for and probably was a little bit better. So I could tell you I fully support what staff is recommending for the performance bond approach.
Speaker 7: I would add that to the motion.
Speaker 8: All right. So we'll bring that back as well.
Speaker 9: And then the last item I have and Councilwoman, this could be either a friendly amendment or a substitute, depending on your preference. But as you talked about, requiring one science structure at least to come down through the development agreement. This small change, small to me, perhaps not to you, so you can give me direction here would be that at least one science structure with an equal or greater amount of display square footage that shows to a freeway has to be removed. So not necessarily landscaped area, but freeway adjacent. So it needs to be in that area and it needs to be at similar square footage and it stand. STAFF Does that cause any concern on your hand or city attorney Does that make it less legally defensible or more?
Speaker 8: We can look at it, but there could be a potential problem in that. The number of billboards in the landscaped area, I think is considerably smaller than the overall freeway oriented build.
Speaker 6: And I'm looking.
Speaker 9: Overall. So I am not minimizing that the landscape just I'm saying the face of the freeway. So it could be freeway adjacent, but you can't for example, you wouldn't take one say from residential, but you could replace it along the freeway corridor. So I'm not restricting it to the landscape area.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 6: Councilmember DeLong, if I may, you're just expanding the definition. Exactly. Obtained council, physically expanding?
Speaker 9: Well, I'm I'm doing two things. One is I'm expanding the display square footage to make sure it's apples to apples. All right. Get replace a very small board with a very big one. Correct? Right. So and then the second thing is that it shows to a freeway.
Speaker 3: Right? Yeah.
Speaker 4: So when you say close to a freeway, we will interpret that as within the landscape adjacent the freeway adjacent area. Correct. Okay. So we will have to do some analysis to see whether or not that does provide a competitive advantage. At this point, I can't answer that, but that is something that we will definitely look at. If it does not provide a competitive advantage to one company or the other, that is the direction we will go.
Speaker 9: Yeah. And certainly the goal is not to provide a competitive advantage to one or the other.
Speaker 7: So being tackling, I would add that to to the motion.
Speaker 9: And when you when you come back, is it your expectation when you come back with something that hopefully it would qualify for first reading?
Speaker 8: We will make our best effort. We will definitely bring back an ordinance that's suitable for first reading. Then if you decide to tweak it some more, we may have to go through that same analysis and put it over for another first reading. It's possible. Let's try to make it work the first time.
Speaker 9: And the last portion is, I don't understand how much effort needs to go into this, but could we get first reading next week as opposed to the first week of February?
Speaker 8: We can check with Amy, but I doubt that we could get this done by the first week in February, to tell you the truth.
Speaker 4: No, I really know.
Speaker 2: All right. First we get February.
Speaker 3: We should.
Speaker 4: Do our.
Speaker 6: Best never to ask it. Okay, if I may, I think they need to take as much time as they need to do it right. Oh, we've done it right. They're aiming for the first week of February. I get it. But listen, if you need another week, then you need another week. That's that's that's my opinion.
Speaker 7: Mr. DION If I can just add it, Mr. Mays what would be helpful to me, and I think the other council members, if your analysis could come to us before we get it on the council agenda item so that we've had some time to understand what it is you found by crafting that language. And that when we're here for the for the first reading, you know, we're a little bit more prepared than just the day of that would be very helpful.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 8: We will we will definitely try to do that if we get it out in time, if not in the regular course, you get it eight days before the meeting. So if I can get it earlier than that, that portion of it, I will definitely do that.
Speaker 7: I appreciate that. And I also want to thank Ms.. Burdick and her staff. This I know this has been a a long, long process. And hopefully by the time we're done or have it right and we can move on to other big, long, long processes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Item number five, council members cast your vote on item number five on a yes.
Speaker 1: Motion carry.
Speaker 3: Thank you, madam.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Item number six. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54, related to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01142014_14-0021 | Speaker 1: Item six is a communication from the city attorney's office. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Malaysia Code by adding Chapter 9.61 relating to social hosting responsibility read and adapted as read.
Speaker 2: So moved.
Speaker 6: Second. Moved in second. Any public comment on item number six? Seeing a public comment urge. Cast your votes only yes or no.
Speaker 1: Council member, Neil. Leo he's got. Motion carry.
Speaker 6: Motion carries. Now at your favorite time members, it's a new business and I'm going to do we have a do we have an item number seven? I'm sorry, we do have an item number seven, new business. I apologize for missing that, Madam Clerk. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 9.61, relating to Social Hosting Responsibility, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01142014_14-0053 | Speaker 6: Motion carries. Now at your favorite time members, it's a new business and I'm going to do we have a do we have an item number seven? I'm sorry, we do have an item number seven, new business. I apologize for missing that, Madam Clerk. Item number seven.
Speaker 1: Item seven is a communication for Mayor Bob Foster recommendation to receive and confirm the list of argument writers for the ballot measure submitted to voters for the primary nominating election to be held on Tuesday, April eight, 2014.
Speaker 6: So great. Thank you. We have a few people here that I'd love to argue, so that's a great thing. With items moved, we have second on item number seven, so it's been moved on. Second, any any public comment on item number seven, come forward places.
Speaker 4: Yes. I'd appreciate if you don't take the time because it's supposed to be a list included and there's no list. I have no idea what I'm speaking to.
Speaker 6: You know it. Let me have the clerk get you that list. I have the list in front of me.
Speaker 4: You know, I asked, would.
Speaker 6: You like me to read it off?
Speaker 4: I'd actually like to look at it. Just briefly.
Speaker 6: Why don't I read it off so the public knows as well.
Speaker 4: Oh, thank you. Yes, sir. Would you please. Thank you.
Speaker 6: This is these are argument writers for the primary nominating election of April 8th, 2014. This is for the marijuana business license general tax that was approved by the council to go on the ballot just last week or the week prior, I believe. So for the measure, those in support are Jean ANAM, Esquire, attorney for the Long Beach Collective Association. That person will be writing in support of that measure to tax marijuana. Against the measure will be Lawrence D. King. He's a retired retail business owner, also is a Jerry Ship ski council member sitting to my right.
Speaker 7: Mr. Alonzo. And I can ask the city clerk point of clarification, is the ballot measure being called the marijuana business license general tax? Because that is absolutely misleading. This tax is supposedly on medical marijuana only.
Speaker 6: I don't know if that's a question for the clerk or a question for the city attorney. Mr..
Speaker 7: Mays. Mr.. Mr..
Speaker 6: City Attorney. There's a question forwarded by council memberships. What she's seeking is the title to the initiative that will appear on the April 8th ballot that speaks to taxing medical marijuana or marijuana. What she wants to know is what is the actual title of that of that ballot measure? Do you have it yet? And if you do, can you share it?
Speaker 8: I believe we do have it yet.
Speaker 7: Well, the way that the clerk's communication is here, it says marijuana, business license, general tax, which I believe is very misleading.
Speaker 6: Okay, we got that. But if he's saying they don't have it yet, why don't we? Why don't we go ahead and say, Neal, here's some public comment on this. Yeah, we're.
Speaker 8: Still working on the impartial analysis, which is due, I believe, this Friday by close of business. And we will have the ballot entitled summary as part of that.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Jeans.
Speaker 4: Sir. Well, I do I do want to address that. I think it's very important how it is worded, because it it is misleading at this time. So I do hope that that is clarified in it. It is called what it is. Okay. I, I don't know what the criteria was, but I, I think that Ms.. Ships has a very good grasp on it. And I, so I, I think that's great. I think she's shown her compassion in this, and I do appreciate that. So that's pretty much, I think all I have to say, except that I will say, even though I know it's already been passed, I think putting such an exorbitant tax, I mean, a somewhat of a tax. So like on the sales, like I could have. But with that, the way it's written that you guys have proposed is very, very harmful to to people who are sick and disabled. So thank you. But I am glad that she did include ownership scheme. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Ms.. La Jean's. Do we, have we. It's been motion seconded public comment, Mr. Dawson.
Speaker 2: He has just for a point of clarification, I mean, in terms of process, we do have these names. I guess there's one person who has signed up to be speak for the measure and there's two who want to write opposing arguments. Just quick, quick question. In terms of process, how does this work? I understand the mayor appoints the argument writer, the mayor, council members. There's one there'll be one argument for both. So the two people that if approved by the council this evening for the argument against the tax would both sign the measure. And so you'll have one argument for and one argument against.
Speaker 3: I think this is the resolution.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilmember Austin title. Our members cast your votes on item number seven. I am a yes.
Speaker 3: So that says the document.
Speaker 1: Bush and Kerry.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let us now proceed to new business. I'm going to start off new business with actually something that's very sad. It is with a heavy heart that I adjourn in the honor of debt. Dr. Dan Barber. | Agenda Item | Recommendation to receive and confirm the list of argument writers for the ballot measure submitted to voters for the Primary Nominating Election to be held on Tuesday, April 8, 2014. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0021 | Speaker 2: 23 and 23 is a recommended recommendation to declare in order to maintain.
Speaker 1: Really just exit a little quietly. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: It's a recommendation to amend the municipal code relating to social hosting responsibility. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council.
Speaker 1: Okay. Mr. OFF You're trying to cut off hosting, are you?
Speaker 9: Second Yes, I do believe there are a couple of people who want to speak on this issue. This is the first reading of a issue that we brought forth several months ago for then asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance. And it basically addresses the issue of yeah, it addresses the issue of adults providing alcohol to underage drinkers in the presence of their their their residents and their debts and penalties that go in place with this, as well as hopefully some awareness so we can cut down on underage drinking, but also deal with some some cultural issues . This was brought to my attention by the Cambodian Association of America. And I know I think there are a couple of people who want to speak on this matter. Yes.
Speaker 1: No matter how good.
Speaker 2: Such good I would move for.
Speaker 9: I would as I would second. Yes.
Speaker 2: Move for adoption of this facility.
Speaker 1: We have a second.
Speaker 9: And a second.
Speaker 1: Move. Second, any member of the public wish to address the Council on item 23. You better hope there is somebody here. Oh.
Speaker 2: Been taken. They couldn't take it.
Speaker 1: All right. Any any public comment saying none members cast your votes that item 23.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Neill, thank you.
Speaker 1: Maybe they all went home.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes.
Speaker 3: The next item is the House as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. We're going to go to hearing item number two to read. You guys haven't been drinking, have you?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So you really were here?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Oh.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That hearing.
Speaker 1: I'd have never to go read it. That would be you. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 9.61, relating to Social Hosting Responsibility, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0004 | Speaker 1: I'd have never to go read it. That would be you.
Speaker 3: Course.
Speaker 2: It's a recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and declare the ordinance. Amending the zoning regulations of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the regulation of billboards offsite advertising. Read the first time lead over to the next meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and to adopt a resolution directing the Director of Development Services to the Met to submit ordinance amendments to the California Coastal Commission for finding of performance with the logo with the Certified Local Coastal Program and to accept the categorical, categorical exemption of C 13 118.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Frick.
Speaker 5: Yes, Mayor. Members of the council tonight seems to be the night where we hopefully conclude many issues that have been undergoing analysis and debate for years on end. This is one of those items, billboards, and we're hoping to present to you something that the council, in fact, will approve tonight so that we can get this taken care of. And Amy Burdick will provide the staff report is broader.
Speaker 8: I'm still.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 1: Yes. Aren't we all?
Speaker 5: I apologize for my items.
Speaker 8: So we are here to talk to you about billboards tonight. You're probably familiar with this. 2009. It goes back to 2009 where the city council adopted a moratorium. The council extended that moratorium for a year and then asked us to come back with some revisions to the billboard ordinance. We did that in December of 2011. The first reading of the ordinance was presented and approved. The second reading of the ordinance did not pass. So the ordinance failed for lack of a majority vote. In March of 2012, we did come forward with some changes to off premise advertising, which you did approve. And then in October of this year, 2013, you directed us to go back to our original language from December of 2011. We have done that. In fact, you also asked us in October of 2013 to add some language related to the ability to enter into development agreements.
Speaker 5: For.
Speaker 8: The development of electronic billboards. So we have done that. We have presented to you an ordinance. We did take the liberty of making a couple of cleanup changes in the ordinance as well. And in the past six weeks or so, we have had meetings with all four major billboard companies to discuss the changes that we are proposing . In essence, we are suggesting that conversion of billboards to an electronic format could be permitted within the city. It does involve a cap and trade program, if you will, or a take down program with the goal of removing billboards in non-conforming areas. So we have presented to you the original language. We have made a couple of changes, as I said, to clarify the findings that we would make on a copy. And we are prepared to move forward with staff's proposal tonight. I'm sure you have questions. I'll wait for them.
Speaker 1: Okay, Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Mayor and Miss Frick. You're right. This certainly has been a long, long saga. But we'll see what we do tonight. I first of all, I want to thank staff, particularly Amy Bodak, for your long, hard work on this item. And you democracy may not be the fastest system, but I do think it's the best because we'll end up having I think is a better product from robust discussion. So I just want you know, I think this council appreciates particularly your efforts whenever you have something that makes everybody happy, that's the nature of democracy. But I think tonight. Yeah, so that's that's pretty close to the best we're going to get. I do have one question. Miss Bodak, we had discussed about the map you had produced several times before, but I want to make sure it was available publicly and hopefully attach the item. Mr. City Clerk If possible, could you describe that map as. Modica? My understanding is this map, at least as that. Or as currently reads, shows the public where electronic billboards could be if I granted a copy accurate?
Speaker 8: Yes, sir. We did pass the maps out and we did work with the city clerk's department and the city clerk to make sure that this is attached to the agenda item. This map was originally presented in 2011 and it shows the approximate location of all 350 plus billboards within the city and our approximation of where we think the billboards could go in the future. This is an approximation. We did lay out the zones that they would be allowed, and we did include a landscaped freeway buffer as defined by Caltrans to try to demonstrate what areas of the city we expected electronic billboards to occur. It is an art rather than a science because it does depend on, you know, the approval of each individual copy. So we.
Speaker 5: We.
Speaker 8: Can't present this with with 100% accuracy, but certainly our best guess.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Ms.. Bodak and I encourage everyone who is interested to take a look at that online. I think the bottom line is that vast areas of the city, including residential neighborhoods, are not eligible for electronic billboards. Is that is that correct? As a as a generalization?
Speaker 8: Yes, sir. That's very fair to say.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, with that, I would like to go ahead and move the staff recommendation the second.
Speaker 2: The O'Donnell.
Speaker 3: Secondary.
Speaker 10: There's emotion in the second Constable Lowenthal.
Speaker 5: No past. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Neal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Miss BODETT, could you explain subsection C to me, please? Specifically 21.5 4.170.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: I think his.
Speaker 5: Page. Yes.
Speaker 8: So what we have defined under this ordinance, all billboards that don't have a copy would be considered non-conforming. That was not our intention. We are trying to define certain billboards as being non-conforming and then allow for the opportunity for other billboards to be converted.
Speaker 2: So the the the billboards that fall under this category, are you familiar with them? I believe it's like five of them. Are they conforming now? Are they are they conforming under our current?
Speaker 5: Well, no.
Speaker 2: They're not.
Speaker 8: They would be non-conforming.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 4: Have we.
Speaker 2: Had. But they're conforming under state law, correct?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 8: They would not be. If this is a defined landscape buffer under Caltrans definitions, they would not be able to build a billboard there now.
Speaker 2: Okay. So these particular billboards have been grandfathered in and they've been there for so long that. Have they had? I guess what I'm getting at is have we had complaints and challenges in regards to these as far as people trying to a requesting that they be removed.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: What.
Speaker 8: Five billboards you're referring to.
Speaker 2: My understanding is that they are loaned the the four or five freeway.
Speaker 8: So there are a number of billboards along the four or five freeway and there are a number of electronic on-premise signs along the four or five freeway that the two electronic signs that you see on the four or five freeway are not considered billboards. So we do not have any electronic billboards today in the city. We only have static billboards. So we don't have experience in dealing with complaints related to electronic billboards because we technically don't have any in the city.
Speaker 2: Well, I would like to move a friendly amendment on this, if we could. And just as we strike subsection C 21.5 4.17 on.
Speaker 10: Okay. There's.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 10: There was that. I'm sorry. I wanted to clarify that, actually. Was that a friendly amendment or without a substantive motion?
Speaker 2: No friendly amendment.
Speaker 10: Okay. Well, that's where Johnson.
Speaker 4: Thinks by spirit. Well, I guess I'd ask staff. Describe why. What is section C? What does it do? And what was staff's intention in placing subsection C? And finally, and I usually only ask three part questions, I apologize, but what would be the effect of removing subsection C?
Speaker 8: So we have defined existing billboards that are built within landscape buffers to be non-conforming, meaning that they would not be able to be built today. They're they're essentially illegal or non-conforming. We have established a series of criteria to define those billboards which we would allow to be converted, and those billboards which we do not believe should be converted. The removal of this section would negate the purpose of the ordinance, which is to remove non-conforming billboards. I'm sure you had more questions, sir. I can't remember them all.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. So based on what you're saying is the purpose of the substantive C is to provide an incentive for the billboard companies to participate in the cap and trade and convert to electronic or.
Speaker 8: In a sense, yes. You know, there are a number of billboards throughout the city that we believe should not convert to digital. And we believe that by complying with the Caltrans standards of not allowing an electronic billboard within the landscape, buffer is one of those situations. There is one caveat where an existing billboard within the landscape landscaped buffer along the four or five freeway could convert. And that is if they acquire credits through Caltrans, which a number of the billboard companies already have, and that Caltrans would allow them to use their credits that they've gained from another location in the state and apply them to the Long Beach location. Our ordinance specifically allows that to occur within the landscaped buffer, provided that they have the Caltrans credits and apply those to the Long Beach location. Otherwise, we are treating this as a consistent land use. We are not segregating one company versus another. We are looking at this as as one land use issue across the board. We have determined, you know, that there is a number of of non-conforming billboards within the city that that should be removed, that are in inappropriate locations. And the removal of this section would negate that purpose.
Speaker 4: I will given staff's opinion that removal would be against the integrity of the statute and given the fact we've talked about for three years. Mr. Neal, I respectfully not want to take that amendment.
Speaker 10: Are you making a substitute or are you just leaving it as is for now?
Speaker 2: I think I'm just going to leave it at that.
Speaker 10: Councilman O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: I actually James Johnson asked my question. So I'm I'm ready to hear from the public.
Speaker 10: Okay. So, you know, other counties coming in right now, I'm going to open it up to public comment. Please step forward if you have a comment.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Vice Mayor, council members. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. We stand in support of this amendment. We have an agreement with a couple of the billboard companies that will put a lot of our folks to work, taking down the illegitimate billboards and putting up whatever new electronic billboards transpire, which are going to put men and women from your community to work. So that's the bare basics of it. So we stand in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker.
Speaker 7: Well, it's a little redundant because there's an agreement that we're going to have electronic billboards. But I would like to give my advocacy that, Proposition two, that we should have electronic billboards. Even if it sounds superfluous for me, I would say it first of all, it's an abridgment a speech. Not to have billboards, to make announcements. And Mr. Parkin might want to address himself to that problem after I'm finished. Would it be in the of the speech not to have them? I would also say that it beautifies the landscape. Really. It's like having lights on a Christmas tree with gifts. It because. Beautiful. Well, having a picture framed. Yeah, it's beautiful. Surely the Japanese and those in Las Vegas have learned this virtue. And that night, their streets are left with billboards that are quite beautiful and gorgeous to behold. Also, it would be to our advantage to see to for the rest of the public to see that we are really concerned with business and what makes business works. These billboards would be advanced and also be business oriented. They provide information. They are a virtue, not a defect, like some socialists might maintain who put a damper on business to attain the so-called public good. Well, it isn't. I would also like to say that this is a cue, Mr. O'Donnell, that when I spoke earlier about about having an advertisement film for a production company, film production companies might be amended to say that a film should be made a half an hour film made but provided with things that would make it memorable. Like Sharman and Champagne, they'll enjoy it and also go along with enlightenment in that regard. Oh, and what is conformity? What is a billboard? It doesn't conform.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Tim Fox. Same with CBS Outdoor based in Los Angeles. Thank you for your time. First, I want to thank staff. As you guys know, it's been a long process and a lot of work has been done. We have a few concerns about the proposed ordinance as it is. I have a letter I'll submit for the record, but the brief synopsis of it is the first issue in table 54 one. I believe the correct was there are some spacing issues that we would like to address. The industry standard in most cities is different than what is stated in the table, and we think that if we could address that and bring in an industry standard which would be approximately 500 feet between what we call posters and a thousand feet between digital signs. It's basically the Caltrans code, but it just maybe a little more clarification. And there is also no spacing entered in one of the boxes if you were going to take an existing sign and expand it. And there was another provision within the proposed ordinance that we're concerned about where if a our company is one of them, we do have inventory within the city that we could use to take down and build digital or convert. There is a requirement that all of the removals have to occur before we're allowed to build a sign. We would hope there would be some discussion on the ability to perhaps build the sign, not turn it on, and then we could do the removals just for some protections to make sure that we don't lose the rights to existing signs. I know that was addressed a little bit in the ordinance, but just maybe some more protection, that type of thing. Other than that, we're happy to move along with the ordinance, you know, and have if you have questions, we'd be happy to answer. But thank you again for all your help.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm here on behalf of Regency. I want to clear up some issues on the subsection that was discussed here a minute ago. The purpose and intent, as I recall from the city council three years ago, was to focus on those billboards that were in the residential communities . Subsection C deals.
Speaker 4: Strictly with freeway billboards that are within the landscape.
Speaker 2: Area of 660 feet.
Speaker 4: Nothing but that. So we're talking about very few billboards.
Speaker 2: Very few faces. In the faces that Councilmember Neal is referring to are five faces that if subsection C was.
Speaker 4: Left in, there would be deferred.
Speaker 2: Non-Conforming. Now, what does it mean when they're deemed non-conforming?
Speaker 10: What it means is, is.
Speaker 4: That you got to go through a cap and trade program.
Speaker 2: Okay. So everybody's on board with cap and trade. So 4 to 1 ratio, I'm talking about five faces. So on a 41 ratio, if I've got five faces, then I'm gone.
Speaker 4: And in fact, in that particular instance, Regency is wiped out of half of their inventory in the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 2: So are you in a.
Speaker 4: Position tonight that you.
Speaker 2: Don't want to take out one subsection C an impact half the inventory of the company here in the city of Long Beach? I don't think so. Your purpose here is to vote on an issue that has to do with the billboards are in a residential community. The ones we're talking about, the.
Speaker 4: Freeways have never been discussed. Never had opposition. No comments that I'm aware of by any residents here in the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 2: Furthermore, we're not talking about replacing them with digital.
Speaker 4: We're talking about just leaving them alone. The reason why Regency.
Speaker 2: Has these five faces.
Speaker 4: Is because they had these billboards here longer than state law. They were grandfathered in. I understand where staff's coming from. I understand the fact that they want to be on the same page with state law. That makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, that one sentence in subsection C will basically take half of the inventory out of what Regency currently has and does very well with.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's your intent tonight.
Speaker 4: I thought your intent tonight from the last three years of going through this was to focus on the cap and trade program in a residential area with all the billboards are in the residence and what their concerns are not on billboards that nobody really comments about that are on the freeway. So I respectfully request that you consider subsection C all over again to.
Speaker 2: Remove it and get clarification.
Speaker 4: On the specific impact of that language. It's one sentence. Thank you very much.
Speaker 10: Thank you. The public comment.
Speaker 2: Very good. You? I'm always afraid of the creeping crud. I would suggest it. They've got those. The five billboards that the previous speaker just referenced, that you put in language that if those ever do go digital. Each one will be at a cost of $1,000,000 a month. Which would flow to the city. I don't like to use digital billboards. I've seen what happened up and in L.A. and the creeping crud and I can just see in a matter of it wouldn't be too too long one. Eventually they would be coming in, marching right down into neighborhoods. So restructure the language. So you make it very clear that there exists no conditions under which any digital billboard would be allowed, be it on near the signs that it's on city property or within the city of Long Beach, whether it be near the freeway or in a city that you don't want it. But if, in fact, it does happen. Million dollars per board per month. Thank you. And if you can't figure out what to do with $1,000,000 per boy per month, let me know and I'll show you where the money can best be used. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Council members Victor Dela Cruz with Manatt, Phelps and Phillips on land use council to Regency Outdoor Advertising. I just want to follow up on what Mike Murchison had said. The ordinance, as it's currently crafted, has four different types of non-conforming billboards. You have the billboards that are located in residential areas, in plan development districts, all those areas where we don't want billboards to. There are the billboards that are on local streets exactly where you want to remove the billboards from. Three There are the landscape freeway segments, the areas that frankly, nobody cares about. These are freeway oriented billboards that don't disturb residential neighborhoods at all. And then four, there are those billboards that are on rooftops. Those are the non-conforming signs we would like to do is to have subsection C removed because those particular billboards, one, don't disturb any residential neighborhoods and don't hurt the integrity of of our residential neighborhoods. Second, it's important to realize that these billboards on the four or five, we may talk about the integrity of the ordinance and the fact that there's somehow going to be a strong incentive to remove billboards on freeways to participate in the cap and trade. I can assure you that no billboard company is going to remove a single freeway off of the 405 as part of this program. They are way too valuable. These are the cream of the crop of the billboards. And unless if subsection C is not removed, what you would be forcing Regency to do is to take down its freeway, its freeway oriented signs on the four or five, its most valuable signs in order to be able to participate in the digital program. You may recall that at the last council meeting you directed staff to include development agreement language for those companies that could not participate in the cap and trade program. And we'd like to thank staff for working with us to incorporate that language. That language is in there. But unfortunately, because of subsection C, we would be precluded from participating in the development agreement process. What we're asking for is if we want to convert any of these billboards on freeways to digital. We would then go through a whole process of planning, commission planning, commission review, city council review in exchange for significant public benefits for the city and revenue. And you could choose to approve those digital conversions or not. We would still have to go through a very long process, but we would just ask you to remove subsection C so that Regency can participate in this program, just like all of the other billboard companies. Thank you very much.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Councilmember DeLong.
Speaker 3: One of the speakers talked about the the permit process and when the the non-conforming signs would be taken down. And could staff elaborate on that?
Speaker 8: Certainly we did realize that this was be an issue the last time around, and we have tried to write the ordinance that would provide some level of protection to the to the applicant. We do have a requirement that when they get a a C up and a copy is being processed, the Billboard company has to provide us with a list of non-conforming billboards that they intend to remove as part of this cap and trade program. They get to determine which ones they want to put forth in terms of which ones they want to take down. As a package that would be part of their c u p permit. But in order to assure that a billboard does not get constructed or converted, we are going to require that the removal does happen of those non-conforming billboards. The assurances that we have provided is that the c u p, the one year vesting period of the c p is delayed or extended until such time that that bill, that last non-conforming billboard is removed, that they still have a full year under their c p to implement the electronic billboard. There is grave concerns that allowing somebody to essentially build a house and let them move their furniture in, but don't let them live there that they're going to, you know, end up living there when our back is turned. So we do have grave concerns that if we structure it in any other way, that the billboard company will effect effectively flip the switch and that the electronics will commence and we will have no authority to to get them to remove the non-conforming billboards.
Speaker 3: Okay. So but we're in the process. Do the old billboards come down.
Speaker 8: After they have been granted ACP by the Planning Commission? They apply for a demolition permits. They can certainly get building permits plan checked, but they don't get to have the building permit for the new electronic billboard until after the demolition of the old billboards are complete. Okay.
Speaker 3: But I guess my concern is maybe if I own that business, I wouldn't want to turn off all my revenue for X period of time before I had the new revenue coming in. And I guess what I like to propose and you can tell me what truck and would you see is I don't know why we wouldn't do it. More like a certificate of occupancy that will let you build the new board. But you can't occupy you can't activate it until the old billboards are down. And while I understand your concern that somebody might violate that regulation and turn it on, that we need to have a strict enforcement penalty, and I know it's a thousand bucks a day or, you know, do something that's extraordinarily painful, that if you turn on that sign before the old ones are removed, it's going to cost you dearly.
Speaker 8: I'm pretty sure we would not have a high enough citation that would accommodate that. $1,000 a day to an electronic billboard is really not a lot of money. Our issue is, you know, consistency with how we treat the building code across all land uses. We do not allow occupancy until all requirements are met. And so we are very firm on this. This position.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: Kind of give me give me an example of that. When you say what's like a billboard, do you tear something down? And then you might have multi-month before you put something up and you lose your revenue in the meantime. Give me an example of something that's similar in the city.
Speaker 8: I'll give you an example of somebody who's not supposed to demolish a partial house in a in a while. They're waiting for their local coastal development permit and they still do it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they didn't lose revenue. In the meanwhile, we enforce them.
Speaker 8: Maybe they had rental income that that they ended up kicking out and then we've extended and delayed the process.
Speaker 3: Right. But that's completely different. That's that's where that building owner chose illegally. But that building owner chose to to move those tenants out and lose revenue. Show me an example where the city is insisting you lose revenue off the existing operation for a period of time.
Speaker 8: I don't think it's an issue of revenue for us. It's a it's a the perspective of you don't get to have the vested right or the opportunity until you have complied. And so there's there's no creative way that we can come up with to demonstrate that they're going to comply and remove their billboards in order to get the right that we are granting them for the electronics. It is a privilege that we are giving them to to allow them to convert to electronics.
Speaker 3: I think that's the difference between us. You know, when you say you don't look at the revenue perspective, you're not looking at it from the customer's perspective. They're a customers of the city. So I think we do need to give them the ability to get everything up and running, but they cannot turn it on. They can't occupy it right until they meet that. And then there needs to be some kind of a stiff penalty or some other action. And maybe, you know, we start a process, we have to take it down or something. But I don't know. I think we get here in a different way. And I also think that if a a billboard company tries to challenge us, challenge us and do something illegal, they're going to find it very difficult to continue to do business in the city of Long Beach. So let's let it percolate a little more. But I'm going to come back with a substitute or friendly amendment on this issue before we close it out. But could you also comment on the item regarding the number of feet, the 500 feet, a thousand feet that the gentleman referred to and what our requirements are and which ones are both confirmed to the state?
Speaker 8: I'm sorry, sir, can you repeat that?
Speaker 3: So one of the gentlemen talked about that. I guess in the language, it's 500 feet, maybe for some billboard, a thousand feet for a digital billboard, but that doesn't conform with what state code is. Can you elaborate on that? Or if not, we'll have the gentleman come back up and asked the question again.
Speaker 8: We're actually being more liberal than the state. We are allowing boards within 300 feet.
Speaker 3: Okay. Could you the gentleman that's a question for you. Could you come back up so we could resolve that?
Speaker 4: Tim Fox, CBS Outdoor. I'll read the paragraph I put together. Make it hopefully more clear. Sorry about that. Another issue of concern is in table 54, dash one as it relates to spacing between billboards. The city's proposed spacing is a minimum of 300 feet or Caltrans requirements as they are on the freeway. Most, if not all, cities require a spacing distance of 600 feet between larger non digital 672 square feet, what we call bulletins, billboards and 300 feet minimum, sometimes 500 feet, depending on the city. Between the smaller, non-digital, 300 square feet or less. Billboards. Those are called posters. There is also no spacing requirement noted for the enlargement of an existing sign, or at least the way we interpreted the the the table. We would propose that the city adopt the spacing of 600 feet between non-digital billboards, between the size of 300 to 672 square feet, which is a poster in a bulletin. A minimum of 300 feet between billboards, 300 feet or less, and a minimum of 1000 feet between all digital billboards. That's just a proposal.
Speaker 3: So how does that compare to what staff are recommending at other cities?
Speaker 8: Again, on on on the electronics, we are much more liberal. We are suggesting a minimum of 300 feet. The speaker just said a thousand feet.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 8: So I still believe that we're being more liberal.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'm finished for now. But maybe before this comes back, I say I'm going to ask for either friendly or a substitute to address the the permit issue. So perhaps you could give some thought to see if there is any other approach that might be satisfactory to both of us. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilor Johnson Well, thank you, Vice Mayor, but one of the speakers had mentioned about the non-performing billboards along the freeway and the desire to keep them static. If there were a static billboard along a freeway and the ordinance were to pass as proposed. Would that still be allowed to exist?
Speaker 8: Correct. It would be allowed to exist in its current state, and if the company wished to convert it, that would be allowed if it if that company had Caltrans credits.
Speaker 4: Okay. So basically illegal non-conforming, it.
Speaker 8: Would remain illegal non-conforming that would be allowed to remain in its static position.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Controversy.
Speaker 6: Gypsy But I think in following that up, if I understood Mr. Murchison, I think the issue is the the face requirement. It's not just that they should be allowed to continue there, but maybe if you clarify that a little bit more about when he mentioned five, five faces and that if you were to convert, that you lose , is that correct? You lose your inventory. That doesn't make sense. That's not seems to be our intent.
Speaker 8: Our intent is to remove non-conforming billboards throughout the city. We did not look at one company's inventory over another company's inventory. We kept this at a very neutral level where we did not get into qualifications and scenarios of what billboard would be converted and what building would not be converted. We did instead look at opportunities and granting the privilege of converting to electronic. There is a mechanism for all billboard companies to work with the other billboard companies to remove non-conforming billboards within the city. This ordinance does not limit a company from only removing nonconforming billboards within its own inventory. In fact, it it provides an incentive that when all nonconforming billboards are removed, the conversion is at a 1 to 1 ratio instead of 8 to 1 or 6 to 1 or 4 to 1. So we do stand by the position that this company in particular could continue to maintain its static billboard on the four or five freeway. It could continue to pursue conversion through the receipt of Caltrans credits. And if it wishes to convert to to electronic.
Speaker 6: Keep that can you or Mr. Chair if we could have the individual who brought that up, could you clarify what their concern focuses on about the five faces and, you know, obliterate the inventory? And I understand that we're not focusing on a particular company, but I think when a business comes and says, if we do this, we lose our inventory.
Speaker 8: So I do not believe that this is the only company that would be required to remove billboards in order to get the benefit of electronics.
Speaker 6: I didn't suggest that. But could we just get clarification? I mean, does that that's kind of an onerous thing to be presenting to the councilman? I need to understand a little bit more before I take a vote.
Speaker 10: I'm going to go and have customer ships. If you can, please answer the councilmembers question on that.
Speaker 4: Sure. So Regency has nine total billboard structures in the city, and they're all on freeways. All of the other companies have significantly larger inventories, but their billboards are, to a great extent, located in residential neighborhoods, on local streets, precisely the sorts of billboards that the city wants to come down. Relatively speaking, the terms that the value of freeway adjacent billboards verses the value of billboards that are located on residential streets where you don't have nearly as much traffic. It's it's it's it's apples and oranges. So if if subsection C were to remain Regency in order to convert one of its billboards to digital would have to take down four of its extremely valuable billboard faces on freeways. And those billboards don't really bother anybody because they're not in residential neighborhoods. And if I recall correctly, when stat when staff was asked to include a development agreement option, it was precisely to deal with this situation and the development agreement. Language right now allows a company to negotiate a development agreement for digital conversions if it can show that it is infeasible for them to take down enough nonconforming billboards. Unfortunately, because of that, because of that language, if if if our billboards on freeways are deemed non-conforming, then Regency might be in a position where it won't be able to negotiate a development agreement. So all we're asking for is the ability to participate in the digital conversion process by coming to the city, because it isn't feasible to take down our structures and we would negotiate a certain dollar amount and other community benefits as part of that development agreement that would go through planning commission and city council review. But does does that does that make sense in terms of.
Speaker 6: No, I understand that. And my my understanding I misspoke. I thought the council had asked staff to see if there was a possibility of being able to do that in lieu of coming up with some kind of cash in lieu of having to take them.
Speaker 8: We do have the ability and it is written in here to enter into development agreements. We do not set the negotiated positions because that would be based on individual negotiations of a development agreement. It is not an either or situation. You can't just walk in and ask for a development agreement in order to convert to electronics. You have to demonstrate, as Mr. de la Cruz mentioned, in feasibility to convert to electronics because you don't have enough inventory or because you are unable to come up with a cooperative relationship with somebody else who may have a lot of inventory. Those are all legitimate grounds for determining that it is infeasible for them to come to do additional takedowns. And so we do include language that allows them to enter into negotiations, but does not but does not guarantee, you know, a development agreement based on on specific parameters.
Speaker 6: We awareness park and other cities that have done this. Is this is this the framework in which they've handled this situation? That's my first question. Second question is, how many other freeway billboards are we talking about in the city? They're talking about, I believe, nine.
Speaker 8: We do have we are familiar with a number of other cities that do have development agreements for billboards. Each of them have their own unique terms because they are, you know, specific to those cities. West Hollywood industry are a couple of those cities. We do have I want to make it clear that there are nine structures that Regency owns, but there are 15 phases. And I think that that's what Mr. De La Cruz was referring to, that he had five places on the four or five, but I think that only equates to three locations.
Speaker 5: There are.
Speaker 8: According to this map, you know, probably 20 billboards within the freeway landscape by far along the four or five freeway that would be potentially impacted.
Speaker 6: So help me on that. So for these other entities, if they were to want to convert, they could take their inventories in other parts of the town and take those down and then convert along the freeway to electronic. But correct.
Speaker 8: No. Along the 405 freeway, no. Along other parts of the freeway, like the 710 freeway where there is no landscape buffer. Yes. So we are talking about 20 billboards that exist in a legal non-conforming state right now. And so none of those 20 would be allowed to convert to digital along the four or five freeway, but they would be allowed to remain as nonconforming billboards. And and, you know, and they would also be allowed to convert to electronics through the use of Caltrans credits.
Speaker 4: And just to add to that, if if we take these billboards out of the equation, I think one of the important things to understand is what is. So let's picture the future of the that the billboard landscape in Long Beach right after this ordinance is passed. What's going to end up happening is that all of the billboard companies will do a will will take down their significantly less valuable billboards on residential and local streets. And you're going to see applications as part of a cap and trade program to convert the billboards that that are not in landscaped areas into digitals and regency would also like the opportunity to be able to do that. And the only way that the only way that it would be able to do that is if if if those billboards that it has right now are not factored into the calculation of what is non-conforming only for purposes of removal. Because of the ordinance, the billboards would still be non-conforming under the ordinance. We're just address addressing subsection C for purposes of removal, which leads to the question of whether a billboard company would then be able to negotiate a development agreement. So it doesn't really it doesn't really radically change the equation at all.
Speaker 10: I think I think it conservatorships go very.
Speaker 6: Quickly when I'm understanding from this photo it does not preclude them coming to try to negotiate. That seems to be the crux of the question. Does that subsection preclude them from negotiating with the city or does it maybe the city attorney can opine on this since you wrote it.
Speaker 8: They have to demonstrate technical enforceability in order to come to us for a development agreement. So that means that the non-conforming billboards, you know, are infeasible for them to remove regardless of who owns it.
Speaker 6: Yes, but have we defined what their responsibility includes in terms for an argument?
Speaker 8: We have not. We have been very, very careful about being very narrow in in what, you know, what we're putting in there for in terms of terms for a development agreement.
Speaker 6: And again, I want to clarify, though, that they would be, Mr. Mayes, that you can address because that they would be able to negotiate with the city, obviously, considering whether or not they can make an argument about enforceability.
Speaker 4: The difficulty they had and I think this is what Mr. De La Cruz has articulated trying to articulate, is that they would have a non-conforming billboard in place. And the overall arching goal of this ordinance is to remove non-conforming billboards. If the current language remains, they could come to the city and try to negotiate with a development agreement or for a development agreement. But we would say you have a non-conforming billboard that you can remove. So how? There's nothing that would preclude them from removing it. So how do they demonstrate in feasibility? It wouldn't simply be because it doesn't make economic sense for them to do. It would have to be something more. And what the ordinance envisions in feasibility to be is a situation where a company simply has no. For instance, if a company came to the city and had no billboards in place, obviously they have nothing to take down. So they could demonstrate that it would be infeasible to for them to participate in cap and trade so they would be eligible, presumably to do a development agreement if they did not have a number. Let's say the number is they need to remove six in order to participate in cap and trade. If they said to us, yeah, but our inventory is only four, well obviously they can't remove six. So we would say, well, remove four, who will waive the other two and you can participate in a development agreement. Or the other alternative is that the ordinance envisions is that a company, this is another possibility has no current inventory. They could acquire inventory or partner with another company that has current inventory in the city to take those five down or whatever the number is they're going to be taking down. And then they could participate in the cap and trade and build a new electronic billboard someplace else. So it does provide flexibility, but Mr. De La Cruz is correct under their particular scenario. If that if the language remains the same, they most likely would not be able to participate in a development agreement because they could not demonstrate in feasibility.
Speaker 6: And let me ask, is there a way that we can. Struck some alternate language that protects the integrity of the intent of removing nonconforming but understanding that we've got a smaller business entity in the city so small but a an entity that doesn't have I mean, whose inventory is restricted in that particular case, what it kind of makes it difficult.
Speaker 4: There's really no way to do that because as Ms.. Black indicated, we didn't look, we can't treat each company differently. Their billboard is just as non-conforming as other companies billboards along the freeway. So that really can't make that. We can remove it altogether as a requirement, which is what he's requesting. And that would what.
Speaker 6: Would that do to them? The overall ordinance, if you remove that.
Speaker 4: Substitution, if you remove that, then those billboards would no longer be considered nonconforming. And so then they wouldn't have to use that as part of the equation. They would be able to come in and say, Well, we don't have any non-conforming billboards along the freeway, therefore we want a development agreement with you. Does that make sense? Yeah.
Speaker 6: No, it does. It just it's it seems to be particularly onerous on I know, you know, singling out a business, but we have a situation because we're developing an ordinance, putting it on top of an existing situation.
Speaker 4: That is and I think that's why we put the provision in there, not just specifically for this company, but for a situation that would still allow somebody like this to participate. In other words, if they had credits from somewhere else, Caltrans credits from someplace else in the state, they could use those credits to convert that?
Speaker 6: That's correct. They could use them locally. So if you have credits in another area, they can be used here under this under this ordinance. Okay. Well.
Speaker 10: I'm going to I'm going to move on to the next council members cued up. Councilman DeLong.
Speaker 3: Two questions, Mr. Mason. You know, you've talked about a feasibility and you said it doesn't include economic and feasibility. Could it or could they say, look, this is making it 4 to 1, just doesn't pencil?
Speaker 4: I think it maybe I was too strong on that. I mean, in theory, the way the ordinance is written, it could I'm just saying, practically speaking, you know, going through the planning commission, the city council, it may be difficult to make the argument that, you know, finances alone make it infeasible, because in theory, everyone could make that argument. But the the the development agreement section is broad enough. It's possible.
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 3: Well, everybody could make that argument. I think it's going to resonate more along a freeway, high profile billboards. I mean, I do see that going to be a significantly higher value there than there would be something that's in a residential neighborhood that has a much lower traffic count, etc.. So I do think there's a an argument to be made. The second question I had is so these billboards that we're discussing now to today without the without a new ordinance, but the existing one, are they.
Speaker 2: Illegal, legal.
Speaker 3: Legal, non-conforming? What is their classification?
Speaker 4: Today, under our ordinance and under state law, they would be considered legal non-conforming. They were all the ones we're talking about were all built before Caltrans implemented their landscape freeway design guidelines.
Speaker 3: Okay. And in the new ordinance, they'll still be legal non-conforming.
Speaker 4: There's no requirement under the new ordinance that anything be removed unless someone wants to participate voluntarily in a cap and trade so they can stay there indefinitely.
Speaker 3: I guess the the if it's possible to do it, the only I would like to see is, you know, the last time we talked about this, what we were desirous of is trying to get staff the flexibility of negotiating development agreements when the formula just wouldn't work for whatever reason, whether it be technical, would it be lack of inventory, whether it be economic feasibility, whatever. But to have that and then candidly, you know, we're hoping to hold staff accountable that you're going to negotiate the appropriate deal. And, you know, they're going to have to justify to your satisfaction. And ultimately the council's through a copy process that it makes sense.
Speaker 4: So and I believe that we've built that flexibility in there. The section that we'd be talking about is section 21, 54, 112. And if you have the draft ordinance, that would be on page three, that line 14.
Speaker 3: A.
Speaker 4: And it simply says in the event that an applicant, applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is infeasible to comply with the provisions of Section 2154 160, which is the removal cap and trade related to the removal of nonconforming. Or boards. An applicant shall then be eligible to apply for a development agreement in accordance with Chapter 2129, which is our development agreement section.
Speaker 3: I guess the major rhetorical question there, one, am I missing if if there is the ability to handle this situation and the proposed ordinance, I guess it's not clear to me why I changed anything.
Speaker 4: And I think what Mr. De La Cruz would say is that in a hyper technical sense, he I'm guessing he probably agrees with me that it would be difficult, practically speaking, to prove in feasibility if the only argument is I'm going to lose some money by not taking down this billboard on the freeway. That may that might be a hard sell in the community for and feasibility. And I think he wants more assurance or more certainty that they could participate in the development agreement without having to take down those billboards that have that they own specifically and adjacent to their freeway.
Speaker 3: And I guess while you can't predict the outcome, I guess what I would hope is that, you know, staff renegotiate the best deal they could with us for moving one or two or three. If it's something less than four, there's some number in there that makes economic sense for the for the business to go to digital. And yet the city has gotten the best deal that it can, you know, for us and our residents.
Speaker 4: And I don't want to speak for Regency, but I think Regency has said that they would not be interested in taking down any of those freeway billboards that they own as part of a cap and trade, even in the development agreement scenario. But.
Speaker 3: Some question.
Speaker 10: Dylan can ask a question if you'd like to.
Speaker 3: I'd like to ask that question.
Speaker 10: Please come forward.
Speaker 3: If you could address that, because clearly that would seem a bit rigid.
Speaker 2: To me if you had the ability to.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: It's practically almost all our inventory to be able to participate in. And it's a very it's there particularly valuable billboards. But the reason I've been kind of scurrying up here and trying to get something in, which is I'm hearing that there's a little bit of hesitation to remove subsection C. I want to also propose another alternative that I think would do the job very simply through the through the insertion of some additional language. If you look at the section 21.5, 4.1 12, which deals with development agreements, it says in the event that an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it is infeasible to comply with the provisions related to the removal of nonconforming billboards. We could add some language saying excluding the removal of billboards in landscape buffer areas, then the applicant shall be eligible to apply for development agreements. And I think that that solves the problem quite, quite, quite simply.
Speaker 3: Hello, Mr. Mays. Do you want to.
Speaker 2: Opine on that?
Speaker 4: Well, I guess it has the exact same effect of removing subsection D, so it's really a policy decision of the council. And if it's council's desire to allow those billboards that currently exist adjacent to the freeway that are non-conforming to stay, then it's just too simple to remove subsection C as it is to try and fool around with the development agreement language. It has the same effect either way.
Speaker 3: I guess. You know, just speaking for myself, I mean, I'm supportive of staff negotiating a deal with that business and having the confidence and staff that, you know, they're going to extract something from those signs. And I would imagine if the company said, listen, we're not going to give anything, we're not giving a single sign, nothing. All we want is new. My hunch is staff isn't going to go for that deal. Hopefully I have the confidence and you know, if we can figure out how to direct this or they can go through the development agreement process and they still got to go through the planning commission, they still got to go through copy. I mean, there are a number of hurdles that they're going to have to go through to make their case. I don't mind giving them the ability to make the case. No more. It takes us out.
Speaker 4: But one of the things Ms.. Boda suggested is that we could change it. We couldn't do it tonight, but we could bring it back next week at second reading because you can't do this on the fly. But you could change the development agreement language to require specifically that as part of any development agreement that at least one billboard be removed. I don't know if that meets region C's concerns. Probably not, but.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't. I mean, I'd I personally be concerned about a number that is as as low as the floor likes. I want to give staff some flexibility about it. I don't want to be arbitrary, but I guess another perhaps way to do it. I say you couldn't do that tonight anyways. May we pass the ordinance as it is? We've we've taken a bite at this apple every once in a while and keep working this issue for another 30 or 60 days. And if we have to come back with another small tweak, do it at that time and maybe not not try and do it tonight, since it doesn't at least I'm not sensing any consensus here of what the best move forward is, other than a desire to to be open to a change in agreement. Okay, I see a few nods there so I'll, I'll relinquish the mic, but that would be where I think we ought to go.
Speaker 4: What is motion say right now?
Speaker 3: Mr. Johnson's motion is on the floor.
Speaker 10: Can't have accountability until next year.
Speaker 5: Just briefly, I would support what Councilmember DeLong proposed just now. It's come back with that.
Speaker 10: Is if I'm saying this correctly, what we have is we have a motion on the floor by Councilman Johnson to move the staff recommendation forward, but also with the understanding that we would possibly get additional information or some options on this one piece that's in discussion right now on this on the section. Mr. Johnson, are we okay with that? And that and that additional information on this one piece could come as soon as the second reading. Is that what I'm hearing also from Mr. DeLong.
Speaker 4: Would probably wouldn't bring it back at second reading. I think what Mr. DeLong was proposing, if I understood it, was just to pass it as is, which was Mr. Johnson's motion. And then at a later date, if council wants to take it up again, as you have this time, to insert something that would give more flexibility to staff after we had a reasoned opportunity to look at it, you could certainly amend like any ordinance amended at any time.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess what I see as part of this is we're directing staff tonight. You know, they come back in 30 days with a recommendation for how to tweak it again, if they have it or whatever a reasonable period of time.
Speaker 10: It's I think I think what we're doing is asking for a proactive that it would come back to us, that that piece of it is a correct.
Speaker 3: Yes, it could be a heck of a memo. It could be rescheduling through the council. But yeah, give a time certain. And you know, Amy, if you can comment on how much time you think you'd need to to address that issue.
Speaker 8: Could you give me 60 days?
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Get 60 days.
Speaker 8: 60 days from the effective date of the ordinance.
Speaker 3: How about 60 days after second reading?
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: And we try it out. We actually do need to vote on this because there's the ordinance and then there's a resolution referring it to the Coastal Commission. So we will need a second vote.
Speaker 3: Okay. And I still have the other issue, Vice Mayor, but if there's other people cued up with something, go to them too and I'll come back at the end.
Speaker 6: Conservatorships keep my question would be the staff. I know it was immediately shot down, but could staff give its reasoning why, if we were looking for an alternative that you offered that alternative of, they would have to replace at least one billboard if we get some. Just quickly the thinking behind that, because I don't think we you know, it was like, no, no, we want to do that. What was the reason for that?
Speaker 8: The intent of the ordinance is to remove billboards. If the development agreement does not address that intent of the ordinance, then, you know, that really should be the basis of where negotiations start. And so we would suggest that for any development agreement that would be negotiated related to billboards, that it starts with the basis that there has to be some removal.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 6: Well, I would think that I think what Mr. DeLong said then is just a little bit more on point, and is that I think that's the intent of the ordinance is to do that. But staff should have the flexibility to figure out how that can be negotiated. I do agree with them. Also, I think that we'd all have a hard time supporting, you know, an adamant refusal not to remove any to be able to do that. So I think while you've indicated one, I think the intent of the ordinance is very clear is to remove. She removed Billboard. So I would feel comfortable that, you know, having staff, being able to negotiate what that entails and how that's done would be sufficient to follow through the intent. And if we can, Mr. Chair, just quickly, because we had this whole issue has been about them and they seem to be waving about.
Speaker 10: No, I know. As long as they have a question, customer ships keep going.
Speaker 6: What was your.
Speaker 4: Our our our big concern is just the nature of the billboard industry and what will happen if you move forward with this chunk of the ordinance and you leave us laying out there for for for 60 days. What will happen is that other companies and, you know, we all get along, but nonetheless, they will they will jump out of leases. They will go to property, and they will go to property owners and say, we have the right to enter into into agreements with these property owners for digital billboards. Regency does not. And and that's why you know, and this goes back I think we were at this, you know, 2 to 2 years ago or so. That was the key issue back then that we were already starting to have companies come to our to to come to our properties and talking to the company to to the property owners that we have relationships with to try to jump those leases. So I would beg you to please, you know, if you're going to do it, either table it and so that you can come back with the staff report or just direct staff to incorporate the simple language that would allow that would that that would not that would not require non-conforming billboards to be a part of the equation in order to participate in the development agreement process. I think my, my key thing, Mike, when I suggested that alternative language, the language pertaining to non-conforming billboards with about freeways and landscape buffer areas, those would still those would still remain non-conforming. So the ordinance wouldn't touch that. It would just basically say that, yes, Regency may have non-conforming billboards and freeways on freeways, but despite that, they can still negotiate a development agreement. And that and that's the little that's the difference between removing subsection C altogether and just including some language that has a carve out for it for development agreements. That's just as you know, it's not infeasible with the exception of those billboards that are in the landscape buffer areas. If you include that little parenthetical right there, you're not changing the ordinance at all except to be able to give Region C the opportunity to negotiate a development agreement. And as some of you have said as part of that process, staff, the Planning Commission, City Council could say we want X amount of dollars where they could say we want a billboard to come down. You know, it's within the discretion of the Planning Commission and city council as part of that negotiation to come up with a deal that works best for the city.
Speaker 10: Councilmember LOWENTHAL And back to Councilmember Dillon.
Speaker 5: Just if I could ask Dave's opinion, just based on what the speaker said. The issue of getting a jump on the leases that in that open market, that could happen anywhere. I don't know that that's a situation that we're specifically creating or unfairly creating. I see that that potential exists today.
Speaker 8: That is correct. All companies have the ability today to go negotiate leases for new billboards tomorrow, irregardless of whether we come back with two weeks, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days from now. It does not preclude anybody from negotiating in the free market.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. The other thought that I have and wanted to see your thoughts on is if there is an interest and I'm not I haven't thought this through to ensure that that doesn't necessarily happen to a company that only has five billboards or however many how many billboards are we talking about where that potential could happen , where the jump on Lisas could take place?
Speaker 8: As described any freeway location.
Speaker 5: So it's five, right?
Speaker 8: No, no. This is four new freeway locations. And so there are property owners, for example, along the 710 freeway where electronic billboards would be allowed and that do not have any billboards from any company today. And so those property owners would certainly be in a position to negotiate the best lease that they wish to negotiate with the company that they choose.
Speaker 5: Okay. I understand that now. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Got somebody along.
Speaker 3: Okay. So my last item is biotech. I don't know if you had a chance to give any further thought as far as when the permits and so forth would be issued for the new building. If you have an idea, great. But if not, then I'll have Councilmember Johnson either take mine as a friendly amendment or I'll make a substitute, whatever your preferences.
Speaker 8: Mike May says he has some language.
Speaker 3: Come. Okay. Mr. Bass? Yeah.
Speaker 4: Councilor went along. I would clean this language up a little bit before it came back on second reading, but I think what we would be doing would be making an amendment to section 2154 161.
Speaker 2: What page.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. 21 116.
Speaker 10: Mr. PAGE First.
Speaker 5: Page 12.
Speaker 10: Page 12.
Speaker 4: By 19, subsection D.
Speaker 3: All right, I'm ready.
Speaker 4: And what could work is something like that again. I would clean it up a little bit before it came back. In all cases, the new or replacement billboard shall not be activated or otherwise used for any purpose unless or until the non-conforming billboards have been completely demolished. Failure to abide by this provision shall result in an administrative fine of $1,000 per day.
Speaker 3: Okay. So, Mr. Johnson, you like a friendly amendment or substitute motion?
Speaker 4: Well, I guess I'll just ask staff. What? Do you have a concern with that or what would you do?
Speaker 5: I apologize to.
Speaker 8: The city attorney, but I do have concerns about that. And so if this is a the direction that the city council wishes to go, I would ask that there be in place a cash bond for each of the billboards that was supposed to have been removed but didn't get removed before the electronics were turned on. And that cash bond to be extremely significant and that that city council can direct where that money goes if we are to collect on that cash bond.
Speaker 3: I'm open to that. Yes.
Speaker 4: Councilman, darling, I don't have a problem with where you want to go. I want to make sure the the penalties are.
Speaker 2: Sufficient to do where.
Speaker 3: You want to go. I agree.
Speaker 4: So perhaps it makes sense to just ask them to come back with the second reading or I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 2: If we have the language.
Speaker 3: I don't want to I mean, I want to be able to get to a second reading times. That's minor.
Speaker 4: So we can't do that. I don't think we can do it justice tonight, but it's not a significant enough change that we could not. If we understand what the direction is and if the direction is a significant cash bond, we can certainly bring that back to you. That language on second reading, you may want to discuss again what significant is, but we'll come up with the number that we think is appropriate and then we can debate that number if we need to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, that's fine, Mary, to just just make it be careful that you don't make it so outrageously expensive to post the bond that it defeats the entire purpose that nobody does it. So let's just come up with an appropriate price.
Speaker 8: I just want to state that this is a very lucrative business. The conversion of billboards to electronics provides immense revenues and is of significant benefit to all of the companies who have inventory within the city. So I don't know what your realm of significance is, but it's in my realm, it's clearly more than $1,000. You know, I would probably add a few zeros to that.
Speaker 4: When you get the bond back, if.
Speaker 3: You. But you can't make the cost of providing the bond, you know, several.
Speaker 2: Months for what the revenue.
Speaker 5: At.
Speaker 3: That point you know over the.
Speaker 8: Clearly understood we're on the.
Speaker 3: Same page. Yes.
Speaker 10: So is that a friendly amendment?
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 10: Okay. So we have a we have a friendly amendment on the floor. We've had public comment. We couldn't have a vote on the motion before us. And Mr. DeLong, just to just to clarify, is part of this motion still the additional request you had made earlier, Mr. Johnson, with it coming back, that piece of it. Or no? Yes. Correct.
Speaker 3: Correct. But we gave it 60 days, etc..
Speaker 10: Okay, great. Okay. So do we have a motion on the floor? Members, who's going to cast your vote before?
Speaker 4: Excuse me, before we take a vote. And there's some confusion as to exactly what we're doing. But I think that what is taking place is it's basically a motion to approve staff's recommendation with two friendly amendments. The first would be to bring the audit, bring the report back with a recommendation within 60 days after the ordinance becomes effective that would give the city council more guidance or more suggestions in regard to whether or not it's appropriate to remove that section. See that we were talking about removing Modify. That's one friendly amendment. And the other friendly amendment is to not require the removal of all billboards that are being removed prior to the construction of the new billboard. But instead of that requiring a cash bond be posted in a significant amount at the time of approval, or in conjunction with the approval of a copy for each billboard that is to be removed?
Speaker 10: That is correct. Mr. WONG That is correct, yep. So. Johnson Ken, we're going to go ahead and go to a vote, cast your votes on a yes.
Speaker 2: Are we still ahead of schedule?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Motion. Motion carries nine votes. Yes.
Speaker 3: We're getting we're getting close over three.
Speaker 2: The city attorney, we also need a motion on the resolution estimate.
Speaker 3: Wasn't there a second vote.
Speaker 2: On this item?
Speaker 4: Sorry, there's. We need a set. You're correct. We need a second. | Ordinance | Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54, related to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_13-1107 | Speaker 2: Item 13 is a report from the office Councilwoman Jeri Lipski with the recommendation to request city manager to provide an update on how the Long Beach Police Department is responding to increases in residential crimes being committed in the East Side division and to determine what additional funding is needed to deal with AB 109 realignment and the increases in residential and other crimes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember said.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I discussed with the Chief about this and the city manager, the reason I'm bringing this forward is that, yes, we've had an overall city reduction in crime, but unfortunately in certain sections of the east side, well, we've seen a marked increase in the number of residential crimes, too. A couple of things have occurred in my residents reporting these crimes is that our officers have said to them repeatedly and the chief knows this because I shared this with them immediately by email, that you need to talk to your councilperson and get us some more money because we need help out in the field that there are not enough available patrol officers. So it was for that reason. And the other reason that there was some grave concern on another call where my residents were told that the reason that they are seeing such an increase in these residential crimes is because of the realignment and that the you know, a number of prisoners have already been returned to L.A. County and Long Beach. So it's for that reason I bring this forward. I did talk with the city manager this morning. I understand that, Mr. West. I understand, as we talked this morning, that the budget summary and finalization will be in February and that at that point we will know if there's some additional money . Money, yes. Available. Right. So it's for that reason that I ask if, you know, doesn't necessarily have to be today, but we do need some kind of indication that we're going to be able to get some additional funds for overtime for the police, because we are seeing this uptick in the east side about residents crimes. And that's not that's not to ignore the rest of the city. It's particularly of concern, I think, throughout the city. But I think when my residents come to me and I've shared this with Commander LeBaron and I appreciate the responses, you know, when officers are in the field, are concerned that there's not sufficient resources, then I think it's appropriate that I do bring this up to councilman for that reason. If the chief or someone would like to respond, and then we can make a motion to carry this over until February, when you told me that the budget would be relooked at.
Speaker 4: We can certainly bring that up. There's been numerous requests for overtime, whether it's for gangs, sex trafficking and now extra patrol. So when we come back with closing out fiscal year 13, we'll address the city council on what dollar amount can be allocated to police departments.
Speaker 6: I appreciate that. And Mr. Mayor, if we could hear from Sheriff McDonald. Oh, I'm sorry. Chief McDonald.
Speaker 3: All.
Speaker 1: I hope that didn't jinx it, Chief.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mary. Members of council. I'm sorry. Council memberships. Could you give me that question again?
Speaker 6: Yes, Jeff, as you know, I shared this with you via email that we've had citizens respond and they were not complaining. But when there was call for services, because we we've seen an uptick in the residential crimes over particularly in the east side, the officers indicated that they should go to their council person and request some additional funding because they need they need to get more officers there out on the street. So I want to wanted to bring that back.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Circle.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have had an uptick in in the area that you're referring to on the east side. When we talked about the crime stats at year end, we were very, very happy with most of the numbers that we have. Overall, as in any city, we see upticks in certain neighborhoods. We come in with strategies of enforcement, strategies for prevention and education and have an impact on the problem for a period of time. And we have limited resources, so we move them around as strategically and efficiently as we can for the period of time. You're talking about, though, we have seen an increase in property crime.
Speaker 6: And I'm just wondering, Mr. Mayor, if and Mr. West, if by February, I'm sure, perhaps I know we've had the request on the sex crime trafficking in things. If the Chief can can come to the council with some indication of what additional funding might be needed in terms of overtime, obviously we can't put new more officers on the street right now because that's a function of getting people through academy and get trained. But, you know, overtime seems to be a big solution. Sometimes when we see these problems.
Speaker 4: We'll have a recommendation in February and certainly the chief can address that.
Speaker 6: I appreciate that and I appreciate the job that the department is doing. And I'm glad that, you know, we'll be able to talk about this more in February. So I'd just like to make a motion to resume file and wait for the report both from the chief and the manager in February about what additional funding we might look at. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 5: Was the motion to receive and file. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. We have motion to second aid public comment on item 13 saying the. Coming up for this. Hmm.
Speaker 5: Let's see. I waited. How long through a here hearings? Yes. Okay. Thank you. What I really felt compelled to talk about is the fact that it's kind of interesting that Rand did a an independent study that that actually showed. Well, let me let me start up. One of the myths touted as a reason to close medical marijuana clinics is that they create crime. Well, that's a myth. In fact, the Rand study, the independent RAND study, proved otherwise. Now, isn't it interesting when you consider that there are no dispensaries over in the on the east side? So perhaps if they were allowed, as the RAND study shows, we actually might have less crime because they have security measures, etc.. I'm just saying this is independent study, so it all fits in. You know, it's very contrary to what was what what has been presented by the police before. So I'm just saying there's there's good reason to perhaps have access on the on the east side also. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right, members, cast your votes on 13.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine votes.
Speaker 1: Yes, I am 14.
Speaker 2: And 14 is communication from the Office of the Council Member. I lost the recommendation to direct the City Clerk to place an advisory question on the April eight, 2014 citywide election ballot, asking Long Beach voters Should the City of Long Beach allow the sale, use and possession of state approved fireworks within the city limits? | Agenda Item | Recommendation to request City Manager to provide an update on how the Long Beach Police Department is responding to the increases in residential crimes being committed in the Eastside Division and to determine what additional funding is needed to deal with AB 109 realignment and the increases in residential and other crimes. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0022 | Speaker 1: Okay. Now we go to item 15 luxury.
Speaker 2: And 15 is a report from the city attorney with a recommendation to adopt resolution version A or version B regarding the proposed ballot measure to be placed on the April eight, 2014 ballot for the purpose of submitting to the vote. It's voters of the City of Long Beach, an ordinance amending Chapter 3.80 of the municipal code relating to marijuana, business license, general tax parking.
Speaker 4: And they are members of the City Council. Before you tonight, you have a recommendation as requested by the Council with two options for submission to the voters in April. The first option would place a tax on the sale of marijuana at 6%, and option B would be a variable tax, which would be a maximum tax of 10% . But the Council would have the discretion to set that initial rate at 6% and thereafter vary the tax not to exceed 10%. There's also a square footage tax for the cultivation sites, and we would stand ready to answer any questions that you have.
Speaker 1: Mr. STEELE.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. PARK. In regard to the second alternative that you mentioned and regarding the taxing, so explain that a little bit more. So we would set the tax initially at 6%. And then based on revenues and things of that nature, we would have the ability to adjust that.
Speaker 4: Yes. Under this proposal or under version B, the the approval of the voters under Prop 218 would authorize the council to establish or set the rate as high as a 10%, the initial rate as requested by the Council. We came back with the initiated 6% and then subsequent to that, the council could move up or down at the desire of the council, but it could never exceed 10% without going back to the voters.
Speaker 2: Okay. And are there automatic triggers in that moving up or down or that the council just deliberates? And what was.
Speaker 4: That similar to the version? A There is. Is an automatic adjustment for CPI. But other than that, there is no automatic. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Lowenthal.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask Mr. Parkin the proposed square footage fee. Is is that something that you observed in other cities? Councilmember Lowenthal State law prohibits cities from charging certain types of nonprofit organizations a business tax or fee based on gross receipts or income. And although some some businesses, all businesses are currently required by the CAA and the MPAA to be not for profit, these businesses are not necessarily non-profits as designed as defined by the state constitution, the municipal code in the IRS. Therefore, a tax rate per square foot for those religious and charitable, charitable nonprofits has been developed. So it was a way to actually. It's a way to make to create a tax that would apply to all businesses operating in the city of Long Beach. And it's consistent with the taxing structure that the business license division uses currently for other other kinds of religious and charitable nonprofits. So you're not proposing an either or. You're proposing, in addition to the 6%, the $30 or under version A or $50 under version B.
Speaker 4: It would be one or the other, not both.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, not version A and B together, but if it's 6%, it's $30 per square foot. If down the road it was raised to 10%, it's $50 per square foot.
Speaker 4: Under version eight, it would be the $30 per square foot adjusted annual CPI. Under Version B, it would start at the $50 per square foot increase for CPI.
Speaker 5: So in terms of the actual dollar amount for the square footage, I know and I appreciate you sharing that with me. I understand where the need comes from or the requirement anyway. So I'd be interested in a lower amount, I think. You know, in speaking with members in the in the community that are looking to operate and give back by way of tax receipts or by way of tax revenue, I get the sense that $30 is is a lot, especially per square foot, for an operation where 100% of what's cultivated in that square footage doesn't necessarily produce something that they can sell. So I'm I don't see the calculation here on how you came up with $30. I'm not necessarily looking to question that. I'm suggesting that it appears to be high from what I'm hearing from the community. The information we were given by the business license division is that that's consistent with what they do for other kinds of for other kinds of businesses. There aren't a lot of others to compare. However, the example that they used was manufacturing. If, for example, you have it's two different kinds of operations, one is retail and one is cultivation or storage. So is this. So the the fee itself, the determination of the fee itself is something that was proposed by the business license division. And is this per year the square footage fee? It's per square foot. How often? Every day. Every month. Every year? Well, annually. Annually. Okay. I appreciate that. Okay. I will wait to hear from my colleagues. I need to rethink this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Jimmy. Miss Parker, just. Mr. Parker, just so I understand, is there's a $30 per square foot fee annually. That correct? Yes. In the cultivation area.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 1: So 4000 square feet would be. No, 4000 square feet. $30 would be 30,000.
Speaker 5: Should be less.
Speaker 1: I don't know that that. That strikes me as a little steep, Mr. Moon. Yeah.
Speaker 5: If. And just to reiterate, I want to be sure I heard correctly. It's not either or. It's both. Correct. It's the under version.
Speaker 3: Either case.
Speaker 5: Really? I'm sorry. It's either 6% or.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: It's no parking.
Speaker 5: Amy said both. No, it's either or. It's. If you're a cultivation site, there's a square footage, there's a fair square footage fee tax. If you are a retail operation, there's a gross receipts tax. So but but an entity can operate as both. But the intent is not to is not to tax. If there isn't if there is a business that operates both a cultivation site and a retail operation, the intent is not to tax twice. Okay. Which would you tax the retail side or the cultivation side? I think consistent with what business license does with other operations that are similar, they would tax the retail site. Okay. If I operated both if I had both you you would tax the retail site. So if I if I were one of the operators, I had a retail site and I also cultivated on site or off site , what would my tax be? Would it be the 6% or would it be the $30 per square foot? I think that your tax would be the gross receipts tax, the 6%, although that's something we can clarify with financial management. Okay. That's it for me right now.
Speaker 2: Thank. You know, I think there's some confusion here. Can you walk us through the differences between these two ordinances? Once again.
Speaker 5: Version version A is an ordinance that fixes the tax rate at 6%, so that there's so that there's a clear expectation of what the gross the gross receipts, taxes version B proposes to set a maximum of 10% with an initial rate of 6%. The purpose of that is to give Council some flexibility, as was requested, so that if it if it appears that there are additional additional factors that need to be taken into consideration, the tax rate could be raised by ordinance of the Council up to a maximum of 10%. Prop 218 requires a vote of the people that establishes the tax. So in order to in order to be able to do that and get it on the upcoming ballot, the maximum tax was set at 10% grade.
Speaker 2: And then on the the per square foot charges, they 30 and 50. 30 or 50. I'm surgeon age 30. Yeah. Correct. We're talking about the square footage v 34, version 1854, version B.
Speaker 5: 30, 30, 30 is four. It reflects the 6%. So it's supposed to be parallel to the 6% gross annual receipts seats tax. Okay. 10% would be the maximum under the under version BS, maximum 10%. So if we started out with an initial rate of 6%, even under version B, we would want to make the per square footage tax consistent with the rate on with with the 6% gross annual receipts rate. So that would be a maximum rate. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. DeLong.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So if you had two locations, so you had one that was the retail operation. And three blocks away you had a couple cultivation sites, or would you pay a gross sales at the retail location and then you would pay a square foot at the gross facility that was several blocks away?
Speaker 5: That's right. I think if you had a if you had a cultivation site and maybe I didn't understand the question when it was asked previously, if you have a cultivation site and the cultivation and that is your operation, then you'd pay the square footage fee. If you have, in addition to the cultivation site, a retail site that's separate that that's retail and a cultivation site. You're performing two different operations. That's the parallel to the manufacturing example that I talked about earlier. That business license occasionally has to deal with. So that's the parallel there.
Speaker 2: So you would pay both.
Speaker 3: You would pay both. So now let's say that year you move your operation, you find a larger facility, you've got the kind of the storefront in the front, right, and then in the back you're going to have the grow facility. Would you not pay both? If you're if you're co-located on one site where you would pay the the percentage of your gross sales and then you'd pay a square foot for their growth facility.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think in that example, you would pay both because you're still performing both operations, you're still cultivating and selling, but.
Speaker 2: Hopefully.
Speaker 3: You'd only pay the square footage on the growth facility area and the retail store. You would not have to pay the $50 square foot because you're paying a gross sales.
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. I thought that's what you meant. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I swear to you.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. Just one clarification and then a question. And just to be clear, so, for example, let's say we went with a version B that square, because just because you're listing the square foot in version B is 50, that could be 30 as an example as well. Right. Okay. Correct. Then secondly, back to the $30 a square foot cost. You say that's being compared to other businesses. What other businesses are are we comparing to?
Speaker 5: Because that's actually.
Speaker 10: That seems.
Speaker 5: That there's actually a fairly small range of cities that have taxes in place. The lowest seems to be 2.5%. And the highest is in in the range of ten, 10 to 15%. City of Los Angeles, for example, is 6%. That was how the 6% figure was originally arrived at. And the $30, the $30 square foot fee was used in a previous ordinance. It was the recreational marijuana ordinance that was passed by a vote of the people in 2010 as Proposition B. It's on the books in the Long Beach Municipal Code, but it was never activated because state law never state law was not passed that allowed that to become a law. So that but that that parallel between the 6% and that and the square footage fee is in that ordinance. So that's that's really the model that we had to look at that and the model of other cities.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Longo.
Speaker 5: I'm okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. Well, this is certainly a dynamic policy area. And so version B, my understanding of it is it basically gives the council the most flexibility, right? So so it sets a maximum tax rate, but we could have it anything up to or anything less than in any given Tuesday, we could basically vote to lower the tax that we felt was appropriate. Is that correct? That's correct. And version A, we're adopt that. And we decided that there were some unforeseen challenges or law enforcement needs or what have you. And we decided we wanted to increase attacks. We would not be able to do that without going back to the people at a regularly scheduled election, which might be a year or two in the future. Is that accurate? That is accurate. Right. Well, my thought is, I think we do need to have the most flexibility and certainly I'm not sure what the right tax rate is tonight. 6% seems to be like a good starting point, but I wouldn't want to bind future councils.
Speaker 1: Tonight it was very shifty here.
Speaker 6: Mr. Mayor, I see that there must be some way to combine this with fireworks. Figure that out. Yeah. I wanted to ask the city attorney a couple of things. Who. Who are we taxing in this scenario? Since nobody legally can operate Long Beach right now.
Speaker 5: I know that that the ordinance would not become affected unless and until there is an ordinance adopted by the city council pursuant to the process that you discussed at your last council meeting.
Speaker 6: And is there language to that effect any place?
Speaker 5: Yes, there is. In both versions.
Speaker 6: There is.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 6: What you've got attached here is.
Speaker 5: An on page on page eight, which is in version B, the it's section K titled Operative Date. And I think the version A. Sometimes we do it also in Virgina. It's also on page eight.
Speaker 6: Okay. Obviously, it has to be very clear in any ballot measure that there are no existing businesses that are in existence currently. Okay. And we don't apply a gross receipts tax. I think I remember we had this discussion. Mr. Johnson had brought this up as well. Los Angeles, I think, does and has caused considerable problems with their businesses because it's considered a a terrible burden. So do we. We don't do gross receipts tax on any other business.
Speaker 5: I know we there is in the ordinance that I mentioned earlier, Proposition B, that was the recreational marijuana tax.
Speaker 6: No, I'm talking about current businesses in Long Beach. No other type of business currently is taxed on gross receipts tax.
Speaker 5: Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 6: Okay. Then I am going to ask the question at some point, could this tax be challenged discriminatory? Because no other class of business in Long Beach, when you apply for a business, you pay a business license and it's based upon the number of employees. We don't do gross receipts tax on anyone.
Speaker 5: Well, there are a number of other cities that have done it on this.
Speaker 6: I know this. I understand. But we also got Sudan. What some other cities did, too, as well. So I'm just you know, we're setting out proposing a tax rate that we don't apply to any other business. And obviously, this wouldn't keep us from applying gross receipts tax on any business in Long Beach. Correct. But that's why I don't want us to go there. Okay. Because I am concerned this opens the door for other businesses to be taxed in this scenario. My other thing, it's not very clearly stated in any place. The county tax rate is 9.5%. Correct.
Speaker 5: The sales tax rate?
Speaker 6: Yes. Sales tax rate that they would have to pay. I've done a lot of reading with the Board of Equalization and they've indicated that they would have to pay, that they do have to pay a whatever the prevailing tax rate is for your county, which is 9.5%. So you're adding a 6% to 10%, which would mean they're going to be taxed 15.5 to 29.5%.
Speaker 5: Right. That would be.
Speaker 6: Correct. All right. Okay. We'll keep going, because in the ordinance, it also says the administrative fee to be added. Do we have any concept what the administrative fee would be for each of these?
Speaker 5: The administrators is going to be developed along with the ordinance, the regulatory ordinance. And I think that that at that point, there would be a better idea of what those costs would be. But the intent, I believe, from the council last week was to include enforcement costs in addition to other kinds of costs.
Speaker 6: So we don't have any idea what it is, but it could be quite substantial, especially if this council moves in a direction to limit the number of these facilities. That's because it does say that we'd be able to recoup enforcement costs. All right. And that this is more rhetorical than anything. But there's no other medicine in California that's taxed. There's no other medicine in California. This tax just simply isn't enough. This is medical marijuana. I've contended all along that we need to treat it like that. One of the things that I think needs to be clarified for voters, too, is that because this is very similar to oil revenue, it's unpredictable because we don't know how much the sales will be and how much will get than this. The revenue could not go into the general fund necessarily would have to be used as one time revenue.
Speaker 1: Or you can have a baseline, you know.
Speaker 6: Well, that has, I would think, needs to be spelled out, Mr. Mayor, because if you're going to ask the voters to approve something, we certainly don't want to be disingenuous and make them think it's going to go to for police, fire recreation, when in fact, if we then look at it as one time revenue, it can't be used for ongoing police and fire and recreation costs because we can't do certain portions of our oil revenue for that reason. And I understand Mr. GROSS isn't here, but I don't know Mr. West if if he's weighed in on this. But part of the argument is going to be, obviously, to the voters, how are you going to use this revenue? So I don't know that we can really promise it can go for police services, fire services, recreation services, because that has not been the Council policy on unpredictable income for revenue.
Speaker 1: That's rhetorical, but I do want to address that. I think that that's not quite correct. We pig oil at $70, everything below $70.
Speaker 3: I know that.
Speaker 1: No, no. Let's be fair. Is for ongoing. So you could do the same thing here. You're going to have some. It may be material. It may not. You'll find out after some experience. You could always set some level of revenue that would you almost assured you're going to receive and that would be used for ongoing. So I understand your point, but it's not all or nothing.
Speaker 6: No, I didn't say it was all or nothing, but I do think that the voters deserve clarification as to how they run to the ballot to go vote this on people, by the way, who from every testimony we've been given can the least that can afford this because they have medical problems, then I don't want us to be promising this is going to pay for fire and police and whatever. Once you say that, then this becomes a specified tax and not a general tax. So and that requires a different threshold. So yeah, two thirds. So I'm that that's why I ask if we get some clarification, where's this money going to go or not. And so that the taxpayers can know that and especially the people going to be taxed there last night and I don't know, the city attorney can opine on this, but one of the arguments I've heard repeatedly from against the taxation of medical marijuana is that what it can do is, especially if we are limiting the number of outlets for this, it can force the people who need this medication to go seek illegal sources because they don't have to pay the taxes and all the extra money isn't added on their stuff. So I just say that I understand that, you know, I mean, I don't understand why the rush is to put this tax right now , since we haven't grappled with how to get people back into business. But that would be a concern, too, that, you know, we're penalizing a group of people that we are saying publicly we're concerned about. But at the same hand, my understanding that this what's the enforcement mechanism about taxing an entity, it's up to us to go do the audits. But if people are out there selling other in other venues, they don't have to pay a tax on it, correct? No, they don't. If they're not allowed to illegally operate in Long Beach, how is it that we are we have access to their books to tax them. And this has happened in other occasions. I just asked this has been an issue about taxing medical marijuana. We're not talking about recreational marijuana. We're not talking about full legalization. We're talking about specifying going after a group of people whose use is dependent is going to be dependent on these facilities that, you know, if we're adding all these extra costs and tax onto it, the incentive for someone to get it and another source is much higher.
Speaker 9: Than we tax aspirin.
Speaker 6: So that's an over-the-counter prescription. Medicine is not taxed in California. An aspirin is not a prescribed medication. You can get it over the counter truck got hold of equalization tax.
Speaker 1: Exempt from sales?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes, exempt from sales tax.
Speaker 1: Mr. SANDERS.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. You know, I was listening, you know, as some individuals have come to me and it seemed like to me that some of the dispensary, you know, lobbyists talk to me about what they said they wanted to be taxed. But what I'm listening to, it seems like they're really trying to as they try to tax them out of even going into business. So I think it would be nice to kind of hear from them and see where they're standing because I don't know, this is new to all of us, you know, trying to get some dispensaries here. But I think we should be fair to, you know, each parties once we find out what we're which way we're going, especially if we're going to put this on the ballot, they want to be taxed. And I think they should be because fact that they're going to make money. But I think the city should make something from it also. But I don't think they should be, you know, out so much from that because the fact that, you know, this is this is new to us. And I think we have to really find a way to do it and do it right. So that's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Mr..
Speaker 9: AUSTIN So isn't there a tax on aspirin? I think I was actually queued up here. I favor the the the approach, and I do appreciate the comments of all my colleagues. Councilman Reshevsky Lipski, you bring up some very good points, but I favor an approach that gives the city the the the best amount of flexibility should this go to a ballot initiative. I'm really interested still to hear from the public on this as well. But, you know, I think version B provides that for us and we can get into, you know, what it's going to look like later on and how much it'll be and how much the the the, the, the other fees will be. I don't know that that that's going to going to going to going to resolve the issue that's really before us. I mean, we, we sent staff back to give us options. They've given us the option. We have version here before us. We have version B before us. In my opinion, version B gives the city the best flexibility and the opportunity for future councils to to deal with this issue. I think effectively should we come back and I once we have an ordinance in place.
Speaker 1: To sort out.
Speaker 2: Well, I just want to echo what Councilmember Austin says. My preference would be that the city have maximum flexibility. And let's remember why we're doing this. We're doing it. We're doing this to recoup some of the costs associated with this venture. There's going to be cost on police activity for sure. The police are going to have to monitor some of these, just like a bar, just like when a bar opens. We have a copy. There's fees associated with that. This is essentially the same venture and alcohol is taxed, right? So but probably probably at a higher level when you would add up all the fees, I would imagine, Jerry I don't know. But that's not so important as we're we're trying to recoup some costs here. We're trying to be reasonable. We're trying to give the community what we believe they want, and we're trying to think it through. But let's not just chase our tail here and say we can never do anything. Back to you, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 1: Mr. Austin, I believe you wanted to make a motion.
Speaker 9: Yes, I'm sorry. I'll move to to approve version B because the city council.
Speaker 5: I'll second that and I'd like to hear from the public to take.
Speaker 1: Councilmember long don't I just.
Speaker 5: I would like to.
Speaker 1: We have a motion and a second. We'll take public comment. Please identify yourself when the light comes on. You've got 30 seconds left.
Speaker 2: Larry. Good. You clerk has the address. Having listened to the dialog over the last 10 minutes or 20 minutes on this one thing, it's clear. Everybody said this is a new frontier. So I'm going to make a suggestion following the suggestions and the council in the way it dealt with the last item as it read now reads A ballot is to be placed on it, to be placed ready for the ballot in 2004, April eight, 2014. I'm going to make a suggestion that what you do is amend this to allow you to follow and learn from a very highly successful paradigm that was used to address major problems years ago. If Mike Latin is correct, formerly known as the conciliation trade, intended to try strike that continuum a.k.a the Council of Trent and I would suggest you set the date for April 8th, 2044, that will give you ample time to sort through all of the issues. And some of the points I think you should consider is number. And I don't think enough time has been allowed for this. There's a reason. There's a reason marijuana is often referred to as dope. We've got a lot of dope, had a lot of dopes. I. It'll give you time to reflect on the very sage advice from your chief of police relative to how ill advised the path is that you're now taking. Some of those already doped up would point to Colorado. And watch state of Washington. But you've got to understand, those are entirely different paradigms. Long Beach is a city cheek to jowl in terms of neighborhoods surrounded by some of the worst criminal and gang activity on the face. Of this country. Period. Consider also that marijuana is generally recognized as a gateway drug. The next thing that will be you'll be dealing with will be cocaine. Meth labs like are now inundating the high desert area. I think there could be a case made for medical marijuana under strict conditions. You know, I've always said if we're going to sell it, will sell it from the top floor of the parking garage or the police department's parking garage. But make no mistake about it, 99% of the activity will come from marijuana for recreational use, which will be out of control. So I would suggest you adopt it. Change it. Come back with a date of April eight, 2044. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Council Vice Mayor and Staff Jina Nam. I represent the Long Beach Collective Association. As Councilmember Andrews succinctly put it, we have yes, as a as a organization, supported taxation, but we are concerned about the level of taxation that may be voted on through this, these two versions, particularly with respect to the square footage. What we anticipated or we hoped was that the city would focus on a growth sales tax. We were supportive of that of something, whether 6% or 8% or higher, 10%. We always stated that that we can live with pretty much because the the state already taxes the sales. It considers these transactions as sales even though it does involve non-profits and it does involve a prescribed medication. But nonetheless, the body does go by gross sales and there's a way of tracking that and taxing that. So we were okay with the city implementing something that parallels that. However, certain things that come to mind, for example, in terms of of how gross receipts are defined within this measure. We have collectives and we have members of the collectives. They can come in and they present. Really what it is, is a donation for the medication. There's a suggested donation, but if they don't have the money for it, they're given the medication for free. Alternatively, some will come in and they'll want to barter, barter their their services. They may want to come in and help clean up the collective or help cultivate or do some other services at the at the particular location. Well, the definitions of this version, either version, that would be then within gross receipts. So then how do we how do how do we track that and then pay a tax on that when that wouldn't be considered as a sale under the Bowie rules? But then now under the Long Beach rules, it would be a gross receipt and therefore taxed. So there's that. Then also with respect to the square footage. Again, we have definitions of square footage that includes areas of the dispensary that may not be used for anything, including garages, carports, porches, similar structures, parking structures. So then if we have if we're providing parking to get the people, the patients offered the streets and now they're parking at the location, are we going to be paying square footage tax on that as well? According to this definition, it does look like that it will be. So there are these number of concerns within this, these the way that the definitions have been drafted that really give us pause. And the next speakers will address the actual fiscal impact.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thanks so much.
Speaker 11: Good evening, counsel. How you doing? Hope you had a good holiday. I didn't prepare anything. Really.
Speaker 10: Make sure. Just identify yourself real quick.
Speaker 11: Adam Hijazi. I'm a registered voter in the city of Long Beach and part of LBC. So I didn't get a chance to really specifically, you know, get into what the impacts would be with that, but just off the face. So you have Virgin and Virgin B, which is going to be 6% plus $30 a square foot on the cultivation sites, plus $6 a square foot on the collective side on the retail. So the retail would be getting taxed at a 6% rate and would also be getting taxed at the square footage from a collective perspective from what what the ballot was saying. Now, Virgin B, which gives the flexibility, as you're saying, council member Austin from 6 to 10%, then it's at $50 a square foot for the co-op. I'm sorry up to. A m I didn't get a chance to really read it and see it 100%. But from what I saw, he did say $50 per square foot. If it is up to then.
Speaker 9: So under version B, as I understand it, if it starts at $6 that it would be $30 a square foot as it is in version eight. But if we moved it up to $10 or 10%, it would be up to $50 a square foot. Correct.
Speaker 3: That that's.
Speaker 4: Not correct. The way the version V currently states is that it is $50, as the Speaker said, and up to 10%.
Speaker 10: But Mr. parking it could if the council wanted to modify that too with a range like like the the percentage of the gross receipts it could be as well.
Speaker 4: There could be an amendment by then.
Speaker 10: Well, let's continue with public comment and then we'll come back to the please.
Speaker 11: Correct. So sorry, you've got version B, it's got 6 to 10%. That's where the flexibility is going to come in, 6 to 10%, which is fine. We understand there needs to be flexibility now on the square footage, $50 per square foot and then on top on the retail is going to be $10 per square foot. Now, you know, you have an average collective to say just from the experience is going to be from 3000 to 10000 square feet. And that's kind of what happened during the process that was put into place. So, you know, taking an average of 5000 square feet, if you go with plan B with $50 a square foot, you're talking about $150,000 a. I'm sorry. $250,000. Now, that is just a 50,000. That's just a $50 square foot plus, whatever, $10, you know, it is going to be for, you know, the collective side. And also, that's not including the 9.25 or 9.5% of the bill we tax. Also not including whatever payroll taxes that will come into place, you know. So you've got to be really, you know, critical with, you know, how this gains the tax. Now, the 6% to 10%, there's a range. It's completely, you know, understood. But I mean, 6% was L.A. did a lot of research into it, and they came up with 6%. And I believe between the city attorney's office and whoever they were working with that came to that that could work. Now, you know, the square footage, you know, I mean, we would hope that, you know, I think something that possible you can realistically where the city will optimal get the amount of optimal tax without taxing businesses. I mean without overtaxing businesses and pretty much pulling out of business would be anywhere from maybe 10 to $15 a square foot on the cultivation side, plus all those other taxes. I mean, so we really haven't had the chance to go through it all, but it would be pretty much heavily taxed. And, you know, it can eventually be an increase in the mayor's and, you know, California state law. You want affordable, quality and affordable meds. And I just kind of think that would be highly taxed with a $50 per square foot, even 30. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Hi. I'm probably probably just as turd as me as I am of you tonight. Disability rights. I do want to thank you, Jerry. Jerry Gypsy has pretty much expressed as much as pretty much everything I would like to say. I think she's absolutely correct. My God, people want to suck these patients dry. I mean, I have. Maybe you don't have the experience. I do. I have people calling me, begging me, help me. My mother has cancer. I have somebody who's sick. I've got someone who's got M.S. I've got I get these phone calls. And these are people who are in my. Sorry, I'm. Excuse me. I get I mean it. I cry when I hear these people. I mean, they're in tears begging me, help, help me. And, you know, where do I go? Where do I get some some sort of medicine to help, you know, help my mother or my my child? My child that's got seizures that I mean, it just breaks my heart when I hear you guys talk. You're mercenary, for God's sakes. It's like you want to suck these patients dry. And, you know, I mean, you can charge these guys all you want, but my you know, they've got it here. There there are patients that come in that can't afford it, so they give it to them. You want to charge them for that, too? I mean, I want you to really think about what you're doing. Are you helping the people that are really sick, the ones that are needing it, the ones that have disabilities in there? Out there, you know, someone just said it's 99%. No, that's not true. There are some people who do abuse the system and who do recreational use. I'm not going to say that's not true. But there are people, legitimate people that are sick out there. Please don't bleed them dry. Please don't bleed. These people are here to try to to to put forward a legitimate situation that they can give these patients access. Please help them. Okay? Please.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: John Bianco, member of LBC, a members of the council and vice mayor. I've heard a lot of good things up here tonight from certain speakers on other subjects just other than ours. But we're trying to create something here, fellows and ladies. And if you if we get taxed to the max with everything somebody has to absorb, like she was saying, he's going to have to absorb that cost. Next thing you know, people that really need the thing, need the help for it, they're there. It's just, how can I say this without getting everybody mad at me? It's ridiculous. You know, I understand the fees to this, to that, to this, to that. But this $30, $50 a square foot. I mean, you can ask any, let's say farmer, he's not going to get 100% back to every tomato plant plant either. Are we in the cultivation business with the marijuana? So, I mean, it's like, I don't know, I wish you people, guys, ladies would reconsider what you're doing here tonight. As far as this taxation thing goes, we really assumption as a group that if we got things in place, we would be able to do things for the city with the city donating, being involved, helping out charities, helping out whatever needed help with it. Looks like that's getting taken out of our hands. That's fine and dandy. Please don't make it. We're. We're in a position to where it's like it's cheaper for these people to go buy in an alley than come to a safe access place because of all the exorbitant fees we got to absorb to be able to to to give them their medical their medical cannabis. And like I said, nobody's going to to say 30 and 50. So I don't know. Like I said, you're never going to get 100% back. So where do these how does this how do you figure this out? How are you going to apply all this? You know, that's that's my major. My concern is I'd rather give it away, make it as cheap as possible. But I don't want to be forced to look people in the eye and say, hey, I got to do this because I got to pay that. And they're going to look at me and say, Why are you paying it? And they have to tell because that's what everybody wants us to do. Alls we want to do is be a service for these people, and you're going to make it really tough if you keep adding on all these fees, this that this year, all we want to do, get this thing open, get it rolling, provide a service to the people that we want that we want to do it with. Thank you. Have a good evening.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and take it behind back to them. We're going to go back to the maker of the motion who has some additional comments and thoughts. Councilor Brosnan.
Speaker 9: Yes, and I do appreciate the public comment. Appreciate the comments coming from my colleagues on this and the staff work on this. I mean, I appreciate understanding what other cities are doing in terms of putting taxes on on these businesses. I mean, Oakland, San Jose, Berkeley, we have the figures in front of us. I'd like to if my who's Councilmember Lowenthal is amenable to reconsidering the motion on version B, the cultivation growth facility piece instead of $50 per square foot, can we say up to $50 per square foot to give the Council the flexibility and discretion to work within that range? If that's something that is? First of all, I would ask the city attorney.
Speaker 10: The city attorney first.
Speaker 4: Yes. The the motion would be then to not to exceed 50 similar to the 6 to 10%. You're going to do a maximum of $50 per square foot.
Speaker 9: Correct.
Speaker 5: And in doing so, at what point does the council determine what that is?
Speaker 4: Well, the way I understand the amendment to the motion you were, you're just setting the what the maximum established fee could be. And the council needs to decide whether you would want to be at least starting it. Initially, your tax rate is 6% if it's not amended. And so so at this point.
Speaker 5: You're free to Austin in addition to that. So setting the upper limit at $50 for the maximum of 10% when we look at version A for the 6%, can we start that at 15 instead of the 30?
Speaker 9: I'm okay with that. I'm fine with that.
Speaker 5: So up to 30. But we can start that at six at $15.
Speaker 9: I think it's up to 50 now.
Speaker 5: So there are two different versions. So under the 6% rate version.
Speaker 2: The motion was under version B.
Speaker 4: So under version B, currently it's going to be $50 and starting at 6%. So I believe.
Speaker 5: Up to $50.
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 5: And I think.
Speaker 10: Think got comfortable I can't remember what I was saying is that under version B could have been 15 to.
Speaker 5: Start.
Speaker 10: 50.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 10: So there's a range. So you're looking at 6 to 10, 15 to 50. That's I think the rate that correct. Okay. Is when.
Speaker 5: We don't come back and have that $30 as a starting point, that.
Speaker 9: Works for me.
Speaker 10: Okay. So as a maker, the motion and then the flat and then the the second accounting move, although I think we're in agreement there. Councilmember Andrews.
Speaker 2: Yes, you know, you know, listen to this. You know, like I said, this is new for the city of Long Beach, but I think we got to get it right. You guys in really certainly listen to these, the percentage of what they're trying to do, you know, after it just seems like it's just out of proportion. And I think that we're going in and what we're doing here, I think, is what we're going to make even the dispensary's you could even cause them to go crooked, look like they're working for us. But the percentage you will put it on them, I just think, are we going to do it? We got to do it right. Because you say we have sick people. We're talking about a dispensary. We're talking about individuals who need you guys. I just don't know. I'm just saying what I feel and I just think it would be the right thing. We do it. We got to do it right. We don't need to sit around and keep it. We put too much on this and then what's going to happen. They need to get their money, too, and it's going to cause a whole you talk about crime, it's going to you know, like I say, it will take care of itself because they're going to make their money just like they said, we want to tax them. Well, let's be fair in all of this, because what I'm listening to just doesn't seem fair. So if we're going to do it, let's do it right, you guys. Let's get it right the first time. That's the difference between.
Speaker 5: These two income.
Speaker 9: Do you have any suggestions?
Speaker 5: I mean, you may have. Sorry. May I follow up with Councilmember Andrews?
Speaker 10: Sure, I have. I have one speaker right before you and then I'll go to. Would you mind?
Speaker 5: But just for him to elaborate in terms of getting it right, I wanted to know what the alternative is, because I think lowering it is.
Speaker 3: It's.
Speaker 5: More akin to what the speaker's requested. Having zero does not seem like an option that the city attorney has provided us, because it would not, according to them, not be legal to tax a profit. And so that's where the per square footage fee comes from. So did you have a suggestion for what it could be?
Speaker 2: I think what they're saying, you know, like I say, you know, we started six, which seemed like a go to ten and all of a sudden we're talking about 250 some thousand. If in this situation it goes to that because we can be flexible with this. If they make more, we get more. But first, let's see where they start making it. I mean, sounds like you guys said that they're going to start making all this money. We're going to get this tax. I don't know where it's going to start, but I think we should be really. But you guys, we've been going with this one. I'm in two years. I think, you know, you five and it's going to happen whether we like it or not. But I think at least we should give them a chance to do what we know is right and get these sick people some help. Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Okay. So.
Speaker 5: Oh, wait.
Speaker 10: Okay. So we have we do, however, have some other speakers. We do have a motion on the floor. Just as a reminder, we're doing the motion on the floor is a version B, that's from 6 to 10%, from 15 to 50. And I go over to council worship scheme.
Speaker 4: By senior members of the council clarify clarifying the motion. Is there a starting square footage as it started? Is the initial will be 15 or the initial was 30? I didn't hear the initial 15.
Speaker 6: As we're speaking. My question is on Prop 218 requirements about specificity. When you do a a rolling amount that you know do. I know. I know. But it has to be very clearly stated that it gives the counsel the discretion and that there has to be some criteria. Otherwise, it's just, you know, you're putting a figure out there that asking them to vote on that. It's not very specified as to when that can be used. In other words, if you're going up to $50 a square foot. Under what conditions does that have? I mean, when does that happen? What what triggers? You can go up to 50.
Speaker 4: Currently the it would be up to the discretion of the Council to verify and determine that an increase would be warranted and that at that time you would have whatever evidence or documentation you want to justify the increase. What we're asking for under Prop 218 is the authority to tax at that upper upper level. And so the assurances to the people that are voting for this is that that tax or that rate would never exceed that unless a vote it goes back to a vote of the people.
Speaker 6: And that will be specified in whatever ballot measure.
Speaker 4: That's correct. It would be a maximum amount, yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Lowenthal and then Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 5: So I think you I wanted to just clarify that having heard council member Andrew's remarks, I appreciate that and agree with that. And I think we're accomplishing that with the range that we've come up with. So thank you. Thank you for raising that. And that's it for me.
Speaker 10: Got to Bird Johnson.
Speaker 4: Well. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I need some clarification on the motion. So what the city attorney had before us was not a range of caps. In other words, no higher than 10%. It could be 9%, could be 1% if we want to later on. So this conversation arranged itself is actually putting a floor saying that tax would be no lower than 6%.
Speaker 2: Is that is that your intent or.
Speaker 10: You're asking the maker of the motion?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, what they really proposed was that no higher than 10%, but we would have full discretion to lower it to whatever we wanted below 10%.
Speaker 10: 6 to 10.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I guess the city attorney. So would you had originally proposed it would never go below 6%. The council would not have that discretion. We initially proposed an initial rate at 6% to a maximum of 10%. Correct. The question under Prop 218, if it was asked, is, could you lower attacks? And I think the answer to that is yes. You can always lower a tax without going back to a vote of the people if it was the will of the council. Okay. So the motion is basically version B, except the cultivation grow facility square footage.
Speaker 2: Fee would be $15. Is that accurate? Yes.
Speaker 10: It started 15.
Speaker 4: It could be no higher than 55.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Councilmember Neal.
Speaker 2: Q Mr. Vice Mayor, Mr. City Clerk, can you clarify what has to happen tonight to make sure that this even qualifies for the ballot? I can I can do that. Vice mayor and members of the council, essentially tonight, what you need to do is you need to adopt a resolution calling for the election on April 8th. And with that, you need to adopt the text of the measure that will be presented to the voters. And with that, we would then have a call for argument writers that would be date, that would be made right after you take item 16. And those are basically the three parts that need to be taken care of. So if we can't come to an agreement tonight, then there's no chance of having this on the April ballot, correct? Unless you had a special meeting between now and Friday to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Got to remember the long.
Speaker 3: Call for the question.
Speaker 10: Good questions being called. There's no objection. We have a motion on the floor which has been just been repeated recently with public comment. Members, go ahead and please cast your votes. 15.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. I know the question was called, but the issue of the $10 per square foot. Mr. City Attorney on the collective side, what is that for? Is that in addition to the cultivation grove? So if is that on the retail side?
Speaker 4: That is on the retail side and that is on in the books to address in the event that there is a501 C3 charitable or religious organization that is goes into the business of distributing medical marijuana, that would be the only alternative for the city to tax that entity on a square foot basis. They could not do a gross sales tax on a501 C3. It's my understanding there are no see three currently operating. But this is a what if.
Speaker 5: Just in case. So that's correct. Like fireworks of a community organization got involved there. Okay. So it's not in addition to the 10% of gross receipts, correct? Just for 523.
Speaker 4: That's correct. The $10.
Speaker 5: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. One motion on the floor numbers. Please go out and cast your votes. I mean. Yes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries eight votes, one vote no.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you very much. And Mr. Clarke, we're going to move on to the next item. I do have one sec before we do that. The mayor did have an announcement after this item, which I want to read.
Speaker 2: A little bit after.
Speaker 10: You want to after 16 to 16, the. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution Version A or Version B regarding a proposed ballot measure to be placed on the April 8, 2014 ballot for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City of Long Beach an ordinance amending Chapter 3.80 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, relating to Marijuana Business License General tax; and request the Office of the Mayor to designate persons, or associations of persons, to write arguments either for or against or both for and against the adoption of the measure placed on the ballot. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0023 | Speaker 2: Recommendation to adopt resolution of the city council calling for and providing for giving notice of a special municipal election to be held on April 8th for the purpose of submitting one ballot proposition to qualified electors of the city of Long Beach. And that one ballot proposition will be this tax measure.
Speaker 10: The emotion. There's emotion and a second.
Speaker 3: Steel.
Speaker 10: Conservatorship scheme. But any public comment on the item saying none, please, God, cast your vote. I'm yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. One vote no. Thank you. Now, the announcement.
Speaker 10: Okay, the announcement essentially is an announcement. I don't know what the verbiage is, but essentially it is anyone is interested in being a ballot signatory to the item that was just passed. You can see Mr. Clark and Mr. Clark, you want to read your information that for anyone interested in watching at home.
Speaker 2: For any person interested in being an argument rider on this proposition, they can visit our website. Pull down the application and submit it to us. We will provide that to the mayor by 12 noon on Friday and that will be up for.
Speaker 3: Consideration on January 14th.
Speaker 2: Council meeting for appointment of those argument writers.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. Next item, please.
Speaker 2: Item 17 is a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute documents between the city of Long Beach and American Golf Corp. | Resolution | Recommendation to adopt resolution of the City Council of the City of Long Beach calling and providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held April 8, 2014 for the purpose of submitting two (2) ballot propositions to the qualified electors of the City of Long Beach. | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0025 | Speaker 2: Councilmember Johnson, please. Thank you. Motion carries nine votes 21. So recommendation authorizes city manager to execute amendments and documents necessary for existing firms to provide as needed certified materials testing, inspection and construction for the public works department in an amount not to exceed $10 million.
Speaker 3: So moved.
Speaker 10: In motion. The second councilmember don't object up for.
Speaker 5: This I did queue up. I know Mr. Cousins waited all night for this, so thank you. Sorry that it took so long. I wanted to just share that. I'm very pleased to see this contract before the Council, and I commend our staff and our community partners for sticking with this project. Despite the ups and downs.
Speaker 4: And the wrong.
Speaker 10: On one stage, I think that I'll be 21 or 20 to work. 21.
Speaker 5: We're on 21. I'm sorry. I just I saw a quick. No.
Speaker 3: No, we voted on 21. I agree with you. Now on.
Speaker 5: 22.
Speaker 2: 21.
Speaker 3: Okay. I think we've we already did, too. I thought we did. Yeah, I made the motion, it was seconded and then we moved to 22.
Speaker 10: I don't believe so. Mr.. Yeah. Mr..
Speaker 5: Kirk G.
Speaker 3: Again on 21, I.
Speaker 10: Believe one I really want 21.
Speaker 3: We moved on. Go ahead.
Speaker 10: Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So we're on item 21. So Councilor Broke put you on the on the next one.
Speaker 3: No, we're in 20. You. Right.
Speaker 10: So there's no any public comment on item 21. Seen the public comment and 21, please cast your vote. Yes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries nine votes. Item 2222 is a recommendation about plans and specifications for the improvement of Pine Avenue between Seaside Way and Ninth Street. An award of contract to all American asphalt in an amount not to exceed $5.091 million and authorize city manager to execute an agreement with city lighting power for the provision of well, I can't | Contract | Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all amendments and documents necessary to increase the aggregate total contract authority for existing firms currently under contract: Kleinfelder West Inc. (Local), Ninyo and Moore Corp., Group Delta Consultants Inc., Psomas Corp., Twining Inc. (Local), Totum Corp. (Local), Ghirardelli Associates Inc. (Local), and Willdan Engineering, (none MBE/WBE) for as-needed certified materials testing and inspection, and construction management services by $2,000,000, for a revised total not to exceed $10,000,000, and to extend the term of each contract to January 31, 2015. (Citywide) | LongBeachCC |
LongBeachCC_01072014_14-0020 | Speaker 2: Motion carries nine votes. Item 2222 is a recommendation about plans and specifications for the improvement of Pine Avenue between Seaside Way and Ninth Street. An award of contract to all American asphalt in an amount not to exceed $5.091 million and authorize city manager to execute an agreement with city lighting power for the provision of well, I can't see here an additive additive street light additive bid items.
Speaker 10: We got it. Thank you. I'm a conservative councilor.
Speaker 5: Lowenthal thank you. Just continuing on with my gratitude for our community partners and our staff as well, and particularly the Dolby, for its commitment. We're very fortunate to have many distinct neighborhoods here in the city and business corridors, each with their own character and Main Street like element to them. However, Pine Avenue has been our city's main street historically and without a doubt a critical part of the downtown's revitalization with its cultural, entertainment, dining, retail and residential contributions. So it's been over two decades since Pine Avenue was improved to this degree, but the timing could not be better in terms of public sector investment that supports private sector prosperity. I trust from the stakeholder meetings held recently that staff has an appreciation for the types of issues, construction for the types of issues construction will bring to businesses and residents so that we can make improvements in an efficient manner without severely impacting our daily routines. And I'd like to thank you for your support for that.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Mr.. And come on up and as you come up, this is extremely exciting for for us in Leamington downtown, we're essentially reimagining Pine Avenue from Shoreline all the way to Anaheim with streets, new landscaping, street furniture. It's going to be a real great project. And thank you to to you and the deal for being such a part a big part of that. So thanks.
Speaker 2: For coming. I really appreciate that. And I just want to take a moment to thank you, Councilmember Lowenthal, as well as city staff for resurrecting this project. This project could have easily been left in the grave when the RDA was dissolved, but with the forethought and certainly the perseverance of yourself and Councilmember Lowenthal City staff and our board of directors, we resurrected this project, although it's not the $35 million project that it was three years ago, the $5 million or four and a half million dollar project today will go a long way. And certainly the residents and the business owners are looking very much forward to this. We want to be able to thank you as well as the stakeholders and our board for this. We look forward to that celebration, hopefully later this month or early next month and really kick off this project and get it done and really make Pine Avenue look the way it should look. And certainly it does help with the new stakeholders coming in.
Speaker 1: To the district.
Speaker 2: And to the area. So thank you very much for your support.
Speaker 10: Absolutely. And to all the residents on this issue. Be patient. Pine Avenue will be under construction for for a few months, but it will be a great end result. So with that, we have a motion on the floor. Please go ahead and members, cast your votes. I mean. Yes.
Speaker 2: Great job, Greg. Motion carries eight votes. Yes.
Speaker 10: Okay. And we did 23. So we're going to go and move on to new business. Councilman Andrews.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to announce the 26th annual Martin Luther Junior King Peace in Unity Parade celebration on January the 18th this year. Our special guest performance is by the R&B band Rolls Royce, singing the hit song Car Wash leading up to the parade. We have martin luther king jr. Peace week, a week long celebration of events within the community to instill a peaceful environment and utilize the teaching of Dr. Martin Luther King's This Week celebration January 11th to the 18th Peace Week included the seventh annual Martin Luther King and Candlelight Peace March. That will be Saturday, January 11, by 5 p.m. for McBride Park. This is the march in honor of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. I invited all the residents of Long Beach to join me and Mayor Bob as we continue this wonderful neighborhood, March for Peace. | Contract | Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-6958 for the Improvement of Pine Avenue, between Seaside Way and Anaheim Street; award the contract to All American Asphalt, of Corona, California (not a MBE, WBE, DBE or Local), for the base bid in the amount of $4,370,286 and the additive bid for items AB-2, AB-3 and AB-5, in the amount of $57,021, for a total of $4,427,307, plus a 15 percent contingency of $664,096, for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,091,403; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto;
Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents and necessary amendments to award street light additive bid items AB-1 and AB-6 through AB-13, for a total of $751,331, plus a 15 percent contingency of $112,700, for a total contract amount not to exceed $864,031, to City Light and Power under its existing agreement with the City of Long Beach; and
Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $2 | LongBeachCC |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118549 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report to the full council. Please read item number one.
Speaker 2: The report at the full council agenda item number one Council 118 549 relating to cable television, authorizing the mayor or the mayor's designee to enter into a renewed cable television franchise agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC, and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise held December seven, 2015.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So by way of background, you may recall we held this legislation to have some more discussion. This is basically an ordinance which renews the ten year franchise agreement for Comcast. And I want to go into a little bit of detail about what we're able to get from Comcast for this franchise. And it's important to note that this is not an exclusive franchise. We have other franchises in the city with Wave and CenturyLink as well. I do want to say right at the beginning that I thank all of you for being here on even other issues. It's unfortunate that we don't have enough time for everyone to speak, but your presence here, we are honored by your presence and for you fighting for what you believe in. So do you apologize? We didn't have the opportunity to to hear from all of you. Anyway, let's get back to Comcast. So basically and again, I don't report that everyone sort of understands this. There are certain things the city can regulate and certain things they cannot. For example, the city cannot control Comcast prices. And that's something that always is people are concerned about. The city cannot control Internet service that's regulated by the federal government. And so in our franchise agreement, we're looking at one part of what they provide, which is the the cable piece in this particular agreement, what we were able to basically get in terms of our goal and you may recall that our goal is to improve competition, have strong customer service and consumer protections. So everything we do must be designed to protect the consumer. So we updated the cable code establishing new standards for all cable providers back in March. There you have discussions about our cable, our customer bill of Rights and response times and what a customer's rights are. If they're not being treated fairly by Comcast or others. In this particular agreement, we're able to make sure that Seattle joined Comcast's pilot program that they have for low income seniors. You're eligible for the Internet Essentials discounted Internet program. And so we're able to get that very recently because we observed and I should say we it's the executive of the Department of Information Technology and the City Council observed that similar traction was was occurred had occurred in Philadelphia. We're able to get that here. We're able to get the previously announced digital equity grant offer to Seattle from a one time $50000 to $100000 per year for five years. That's about $500,000 in additional benefits. We will partner with Comcast at the City of Seattle to help risk risk add youth, obtain devices such as laptop computers. We have $8 million in public educational and governmental access channel financial support for those those public services. We have a 30% discount on basic tier, low income subscribers, and we have 600 modems to nonprofit organizations that's valued at about $10 million. In short, we had our Department of Information Technology go toe to toe with Comcast to get as many community benefits and consumer protections as we could. I will sort of close by saying we've had lengthy discussions about Comcast role and obligation. Our community and the city takes those very, very seriously. We hear daily people complaining about Comcast wanting competition, wanting lower rates. And so we have done everything possible in the last several months trying to achieve that. Last, I will say that many of the benefits that we've gotten, because they were not directly cable related, came in this letter agreement that I think all of you now have either talked to legal counsel or have seen the letter. And so we do have opinions that this is about as binding as it can get, given the sort of the hand that we're dealt, the hand being some of these are non cable related through theories of the legal theories such as promissory estoppel or equal to stop and all these fancy terms that sort of describe what Comcast must do. We are comfortable that that letter, that December 7th letter's binding. So the committee recommends passage of this legislation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Guarded.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. Harrell I Licata. O'Brien Hi. Rasmussen. So on President Burgess eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items two and three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to enter into a renewed Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC; and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CF 314336 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items two and three.
Speaker 2: Agenda items two and three. Click 43143364. Unit Lot Subdivision application of both our partners to subdivide ten parcels into 67 unit lots at 4204 South Trenton Street and Constable 118 591 approving and confirming the plot of Greenbelt Station and the portions of Southwest one fourth of Northeast, one fourth of Section 34, township 24, North Range four, East W and King County, Washington. Both items introduced December 7th, 2015.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: No, I get back later. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm trying to pull out my talking points on this one, so give me just 2 seconds. Council President Burgess.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 7: I should have been caught off guard. I know.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: Well, while your styling comes from Brian Katz from Rasmussen asked me where was I doing those? And I started scrambling my paper.
Speaker 0: So, yeah.
Speaker 1: You're off the hook.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 7: So much fun today. So.
Speaker 0: Uh.
Speaker 7: So today's agenda, the legislation is to take the final steps in the plat of property near the Rainier Beach Light Rail Station, because this is an administrative function that is required to take place within 30 days of the council receipt of legislation. That is why it has been referred directly to the full council. The plat approval is basically a two step process. First, the hearing examiner holds a hearing and makes a conditional recommendation on how the property should be subdivided. After those conditions are met, the council passes an ordinance to make it official. This subdivision was approved in 2010 and those are now complete in their attention. The hope is that sales can begin of them by the end of this year, which is why we're on this timeline. So the short version is this is something that is required to come through council, although we really do not have discretion by the time it reaches us. So support both of these moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments i move that the application be granted.
Speaker 3: So again.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Those in favor of the application being granted vote I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the application is granted. I now move to pass item three Council Bill 118591.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Are there any comments? Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Got it. Gonzalez Harrell. Licata O'Brian. Rasmussen.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: So on President Burgess.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Eight in favor and then opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. We'll now consider Resolution 31640 declaring support for the Seattle School District's levies, as provided for under the revised Code of Washington. 42.17 8.5 55. The City Council will now consider the adoption of Resolution 31640. | Clerk File (CF) | Full unit lot subdivision application of Othello Partners to subdivide 10 parcels into 67 unit lots at 4204 S. Trenton Street (No 3017145 / Type III). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118593 | Speaker 2: 634 of the Education and Governance Committee. Agenda number six Council 118 593 relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the fourth quarter 2015 Employment Ordinance establishing new salaries set implement 2016 increases required by ordinance 1244 Amending Ordinance 124 927 Increasing funds designated positions as exempt from civil service status and ratifying confirming certain perks all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This legislation is our fourth quarter employment ordinance. This clarifies salaries for approximately six positions in city government. It also removes 11 positions from the civil service and exempts them from civil service and it ratifies and confirms prior acts. This is fairly routine legislation that the committee recommended passage. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gordon Gonzalez Ferrell. Licata O'Brien. Hi Rasmussen. So on President Burgess Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2015 Employment Ordinance; establishing new salaries that implement 2016 increases required by Ordinance 124490; amending Ordinance 124927; increasing funds; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_Res 31639 | Speaker 2: Agenda item number seven, Resolution 316 39. Adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council. Superseding Resolution three 149 and 315 61. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Every two years, the Council reviews its rules and procedures, and this resolution in front of us today has modifications to our rules and procedures. Some are organizational. For example, the rules affecting committee meetings have been moved to one section so that you can read all the rules about meetings at one place and don't have to flip around. Among the rules, there's also some stylistic changes. We've changed some phrasing for clarity, and we have made the document general gender neutral throughout. There are also some substantive revisions which have been reviewed. We clarify the President's responsibilities in acting as the Presiding Officer. We add language related to the President pro tem and how that assignment is made. We remove.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 1: Authority of the President to grant emergency absences of council members. We add language to make the introduction, referral and referral process explicit within the rules for the first time. We add language requiring that resolutions be circulated at least 2 hours before a full council meeting. As is the current practice with bills and amendments. We clarify that bill and resolution amendments must be circulated via email to all council members and to the city clerk. We remove language that requires council members to stand when making comments in the Parliamentary Procedures section, we clarify two subsections related to laying a matter on the table or holding indefinitely that that motion requires a majority of council members present, not a majority of the entire city council. We remove a sentence related to other council members. Attending meetings shall not leave without notifying the committee chair, which by the way, is practice. We tend to come and go from committee meetings. We remove the requirement for divided reports and replace it with a requirement that committee clerks notify council members when a committee vote has not been unanimous. This section was recommended to us from central staff and divided reports are now optional, with the request being made by any council member that such a report be prepared by central staff. We add more detail explaining the Budget Committee process, including the suspension of regular committee meetings, quorum requirements, and how the Budget Chair presents a proposed balancing package to council members. We remove language around a specific town hall committee. We clarify that the President may amend or abolish select committees by memos, just as the President may create them by memo. We add language that states that the attorney client privilege communication with the Council can only be waived by a unanimous agreement by all nine council members in executive session. We add language about the central staff director or her designee to the list of attendees that are allowed at executive session, which is consistent with current practice. We add language that the Presiding Officer may suspend or modify the requirement to electronically record meetings to protect the safe and responsible functioning of the Council. This authority to suspend or modify in extraordinary circumstances already exists for other rules around public access. And we clarify the language around the use of the Council Chamber and referring directly to the separate council policy and procedure on use of the chamber. So I will move adoption of resolution 31639 and thank you and we'll take comments and there are some amendments as well. And so, Councilmember Licata, let's begin with your amendments.
Speaker 8: Great. Thank you. There is an order of three amendments that I have, but I know there is also a technical amendment that is out there as well. So we just move that.
Speaker 1: We're going to make that last.
Speaker 8: I'll make that last. Okay. So my First Amendment is and we should all have copies in front of you. It's an underlying read has to do with the Labor Committee. And I believe I may have mentioned it this morning at the briefing meeting the Labor. Committee is a select committee comprised of the president, the chair of the Budget Committee and three council members selected by the President. And secondly, the primary purpose of the Labor Committee is to serve on the Labor Relations Policy Committee and perform the functions established by Inadmissible Code Section 4.0412 Show. This language is in conformity with the description that was just made by the Council President Burgess. It just basically codifies it our rules to make sure that we understand what's going on.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I would second this amendment. Number one, are there any questions or comments?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Harrell Just to clarify in question, um, when I was looking at this during and sort of earlier draft, I was sort of confusing the Labor Committee with the LRP. C, so. What's the difference there in terms of what we're trying to do? LRP c we have five members on the labor committee. We have how many members? I'm just looking.
Speaker 1: Positive. So the Labor Committee is the five council members that are then the members of the Labor Relations Committee, which also includes representatives from the executive side.
Speaker 3: So this, in effect, changes the PC as well.
Speaker 1: No, no, no.
Speaker 3: It has no effect. It's just correct. Okay.
Speaker 1: Our Labor Committee, all five members are members of the LR PC, which includes other members from the executive branch. Other questions or comments. Arena. You have this halo effect over your head.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 2: Happens when you're in the new vein.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yes. All right. Let's vote on Councilmember Lakatos First Amendment on the membership of the Labor Committee. And I will say that paragraph one of this amendment is essentially the practice that we have today. So this codifies that in our rules, all in favor of amendment number one vote. I oppose vote no. So amendment number one is unanimously adopted. Thank you. Amendment number two.
Speaker 8: Amendment number two. This one. Amend subsections one. See? Seven and six b5 to attach to attachment A in resolution 31639 to establish that the Council President cannot serve as Finance Committee Chair. And by extension, this would preclude the President from acting as the Budget Committee chair. The change in wording would be under C president. Point seven is provided in section six B of these rules. The President will not serve as a chair of the Finance Committee and then under membership is repeated. The person will not serve as the chair of the Finance Committee. This, again, like the First Amendment, is a practice that we have been following for many, many years. Again, it just basically codifies it and our rules.
Speaker 1: No Second Amendment questions or comments. All in favor of them. And amendment number two, vote I. I oppose vote no. The amendment is unanimously adopted.
Speaker 8: Amendment number three, Amendment three, amend subsection six, h five and 7g5 to attachment eight, resolution 31639. To provide the option for a council member participating in a non unanimous committee recommendation to request a written divided report. And the changes are shown and read. And there's a section that would now be called Optional Divided Report and it again in vernacular pretty much repeats what Council President Burgess just described in going over the council rules, except that this actually again puts it in writing. The first line probably summarizes the past, which says if a committee recommendation is not unanimous and if requested by a council member having voted and this is either I or no a recommendation the divide report contained a different recommendation shall be made available after the committee meeting for signing by council members who voted No were I and wish to subscribe to the report. This again follows procedures we've been following for years. It does clarify at least three days before the scheduled presentation of the recommendation to the full council. The same report shall be made available to all council members. I'm not sure we've followed that strictly, but I think again, it's good to put this in here to have as much scheduling as possible. So there are no surprises or mistake in a bad timing. And the third element is reporting recommendation to the full council. The position signed by the majority shall be considered first. And if there's no majority position, the position of the Chair shall be considered first. Again, this is alignment with what we've done the past.
Speaker 1: Is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second?
Speaker 1: Any questions or comments? Councilmember Harrell, I.
Speaker 3: Just wanna make sure I understand it. So. Right now, our current practice and maybe the proposal could just sort of explain it to me and I'm sorry I wasn't following some of this as closely as I could have. If there's a split vote at a committee level right now, it's mandatory to have a divided report. And you're suggesting that it be an option. As opposed to it being mandatory?
Speaker 8: Well, actually. As opposed to not having it at all. Well, the language in. I'd have to have the current rules in front of me. Do not require it. I believe the old language did require it. The intent of the current language, as was preserved and passed out of committee, is the expectation that it would be optional. So what this does is. Go. We basically caught a firework. But I believe the intent was they came out of committee.
Speaker 3: So if I could just follow up, I guess I'm not sure what problem we're fixing here and that quite. If I could be so bold as to say whatever seemed to be working with respect to divided reports was working for me, because whenever there was contentiousness at the committee level, I was actually looking forward to see the minority opinion and the majority opinion, and I was looking forward to having a week, an extra week to make some decisions and walk the floor and talk to constituents. And that system worked. And so by changing and that year end, I'm just not sure what we accomplish. And I probably need to know what's going on behind it. You're saying that we're codifying something that we're doing anyway, which would lead me to believe that we don't have to change it then if we're doing it anyway. So if we're codifying it and something's changing, I guess I need to know what the practical effects are. I actually like to divide a report, and I like a little additional time to see where we fall.
Speaker 8: Well, I am actually in agreement with you under percent. Problem is, that's no longer in the proposal before in front of us. It's not there.
Speaker 1: So let me give you the history of this. The current council rules require if there is a committee vote that is not unanimous. The rules require central staff to prepare a divided report, and the rules also require a delay in when the council will consider the matter for at least one full week unless the council president and the committee chair waive that requirement. So we're not changing the timing. There will still be a delay unless the council president and the committee chair waive that requirement. Central staff came to the committee that reviewed the rules and recommended that we eliminate the mandatory central staff prepared divided report which has existed for decades because and there are their argument was that technology has changed. Any council member can view committees that they weren't at. Any council member can still request that a presentation of their position be developed, which they can develop on their own, or they can ask central staff to help them. So basically what the committee that reviewed the rules is saying is, let's get rid of this mandatory obligation that central staff prepare a divided report and leave that to council members to argue and advance their own positions how they see fit. Now, this particular amendment from Council member Licata I oppose because it we might refer to it as the optional mandatory divided report because while it says it's optional, any council member who requests a divided report, it requires the council members who voted differently to then prepare the divided report. And I think what we should do is go with what the Rule Rules Committee recommended to us, which is keep the time delay on on non-unanimous committee votes, but rely on council members to advance their own positions however they see fit. Whether they want to work with their colleagues or work with outside constituents, that's totally up to them. Council members, as you all know, can still ask central staff for assistance in preparing materials. So I don't think that this particular amendment is necessary. Any other questions or comments? And the response was.
Speaker 8: Well, I want to quote it in response to this, because it may be continue. I, I do not read this in the same manner that you do. The first line says the committee recommendation is not unanimous, and if so, it's conditioned, if requested by a council member having voted I or no. And a recommendation, a divide report contain the different regions shall be made available. So you're reading this as if someone says no, they're requiring the ice side to do a report.
Speaker 1: Well, reading this very same paragraph that you just read from the bottom of page two, who's going to prepare that divided report?
Speaker 8: Well, is actually sign on that. It could be the council member or the staff. And I actually I had talked to the staff and don't want to drag them into this, but I did not get the impression that there was a strong will condition not to do that. I didn't see anything in writing my discussion. It was basically a comment that they didn't need to. But when when I discussed the central staff, they said they'd be glad to. So, you know, I don't want to cast aspersions on what. We're we're saying central staff is saying. But I just didn't get the same response that you did. And let me just say, my intent here is pretty much as Customer Harrell's, I think it's really important to have some sort of. Now codify that historic record of what the positions were on the council. And I would think actually that the council members might feel more comfortable having the central staff actually write something and then having the council members sign off on it. But this is silent net in that fashion.
Speaker 1: So Councilmember look kind of good points but there is a record of course of all the positions council member takes take all of our committee meetings are recorded.
Speaker 0: Both.
Speaker 1: Audio and visually. That's all available to anyone on demand. So I think what's at central staff appeared in front of the committee on at least two occasions and made this recommendation. They made this recommendation to the committee, the staff committee that formed these recommendations. I don't think this recommendation originated with any council member. This came from central staff to the council, and they testified that way in front of the committee. So I think if you look at your language at the bottom of page two, it says that any council member may request a divided report, and it's clear that that has to be prepared by somebody. Yeah. And that's going to be council members. In this in this whatever format they wish to take.
Speaker 8: And that and.
Speaker 1: And I don't know what that accomplishes. And I also don't think this is that big of a deal. And so we probably shouldn't be spending so much time on it. We're just following the recommendations of the Rules Committee that looked at these rules, trying to streamline a bit as one central staff said in front of the committee , we're just trying to avoid a lot of unnecessary work.
Speaker 8: Let me just say that. Having it digitally recorded and having it in a written report, it just makes it so much easier doing research and look it up.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure that council members who feel strongly about their opinions are going to write things, say things, publish things, and try to influence all of us to share their view. And that's healthy and that's good. I don't think anyone is going to find that. We can't figure out how you or any other council member believes or what position they take. So let's vote on amendment number three from council member. Oh, excuse me. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So my sense is that we're not really arguing over much. Council President Burgess If I could just ask some clarity. My understanding is that without Council Member Luke Hodges amendment as is proposed, that eliminates the requirement to do a divided report where there may be situations where folks are doing work that no one really is asked to do, but it doesn't prohibit folks from doing it from a timeframe or from folks submitting other types of reports. They could work with central staff to produce that or do it on their own. Is that.
Speaker 1: Accurate? That's correct. It does not change the time delay issue that stays intact. It just it places the burden on us as individual members. If we want to have help in preparing materials, we can either do that ourselves in our own offices, or we can ask central staff to help us. And that's all.
Speaker 0: Available. Okay.
Speaker 7: And so I haven't had I wasn't at the committee meetings to hear it. I think what you're saying and what I think Councilmember Carter's language is trying to suggest to the same thing, I'm comfortable with it as is if that's now we have this great legislative record of what we're talking about. So we're going to we.
Speaker 1: Certainly.
Speaker 7: Do look to the video. Do we want to do this report? Do it. And if it turns out it's not, we can amend that.
Speaker 1: COUNCILMEMBER So I want.
Speaker 6: I also have a clarifying question if. If the. Well, first thing, I just wanted to say that in terms of facilitating democracy, I think this is a good idea to have monetary divider reports, not mandatory, but, you know, divide report as part of the record because there's just tons and tons of video and audio. I don't think we can expect people to wade through stuff like that. So for important things, there will be there should be a record that is easily accessible. The question I had was if if we if without Gutenberg Lakatos amendment, what does it mean for the delay that we have now? So if there is a if there is a lot of a stand off in a committee, and then one of those sides decides to issue a report of their own, but the other guns are there. A council member or council members decide they don't want to, or for whatever reason, they don't do it. Does that still give the council member who issued that their own side of the report? It's not divided per se because there's no opposing report. Does that still allow that council member to then have a delay as long as the chair and the president don't agree? I mean, don't don't disagree.
Speaker 1: Yes, it does. We're not changing the time delay issue that that's staying exactly as it is today.
Speaker 6: So even if one of the sides issues a report in that divided about it.
Speaker 1: Well, actually, actually, there doesn't have to be a divided report. If there is a divided vote in a committee, then it's an automatic delay until at least a full week unless the council president and the committee chair rule otherwise, which is happens. But, you know, it's fairly rare that that happens.
Speaker 8: May I have a closing statement on this?
Speaker 1: Well, Councilmember Rasmussen, I'll.
Speaker 0: Just say something. But no.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to say anything. I think it's all been said. I like the idea of divided reports. I think our sort of staff does a great job. They help us create a good legislative history. It helps us focus our comments either for or against. So I find them really convenient.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Licata Let me just say that if I do believe we don't adopt this amendment, what we're facing is you could have literally four or five different cast members writing different opinions. We might both vote against something, but I have a good reason you do. This basically allows for, quite honestly, more structured approach where you've got working with the central staff, coming up with something that people sign off with, it or not, I think it makes for a better record.
Speaker 1: That's all. Thank you. We'll now vote on amendment number three. Those in favor of vote i, i. Those oppose vote no. No. The amendment fails. Excuse me. The amendment passes. Yes. I'm sorry. Oh, the clerk wants a vote by hand, please. So those in favor, please raise your hand.
Speaker 3: I'm a little confused. Are we voting on Councilman? The colors of. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: His amendment number three on optional divided reports. Those in favor of amendment number three, raise your hand. Those opposed. Raise your hand. So it's 4 to 4. The amendment fails. We now have the rules in front of us, which is resolution 31639. Are there any other comments on the resolution?
Speaker 3: Who understood the last amendment and the difference between.
Speaker 1: And for the public? Welcome to our discussions. Was not that significant. But central staff is back there celebrating right now. So we appreciate the good work they do. We'll now vote on resolution 316. No, I'm going to make another amendment. Sorry, this is amendment attachment number one. And it is an amendment to the general rules and procedures. Each of you have this it was passed out this morning and these are non substantive amendments. It would fill in the appropriate resolution number on the cover page of attachment number one, which is resolution number 31639. And it would correct the header on page 25 by deleting the word regular to correctly identify the article title, I would move this amendment second. So any discussion? All in favor of the amendment vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment is adopted and now we will vote on resolution 31639 as amended. All in favor. Vote I. I oppose. Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted and I will sign it. Please read items eight, nine and ten. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION adopting General Rules and Procedures of the Seattle City Council; superseding Resolutions 31489 and 31561. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118582 | Speaker 2: 3234 of the Finance and Culture Committee agenda item 32 Constable 118 582 Authorizing a 2015 acceptance of funding from non city sources authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, City Budget Office, Department of Neighborhoods, Department of Parks, Recreation. Human Services Department, Seattle Fire Department, Taylor Police Department, Department of Information Technology and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants, private funding, donations and subsidized loans, and to execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements and run off and confirm research and projects the committee recommends as bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 8: This is the ordinance that authorizes the 2015 acceptance of funding from non city sources in authorizing the heads of various executive departments to accept specified grants, private funding, donations and subsidized loans, and to execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements which accompany those funds.
Speaker 1: Two questions or comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gordon Gonzalez Harrell. Lakota O'Brian Rasmussen. So on President Burgess High eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 33. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2015, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, City Budget Office, Department of Neighborhoods, Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, Department of Information Technology, and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants, private funding donations and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118596 | Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 34 through the first semicolon.
Speaker 2: Agenda item 34 accountable 118 596 relating to the creation of a Title six business license.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Licata.
Speaker 8: This knowledge is great. This legislation creates a new Title six business license that nearly all businesses engaging in business in the city will be required to obtain. It will be issued currently concurrently with the business license tax certificate that businesses currently obtain under the settlement civil code. And there will be no separate fee for the Title six license. In addition, the legislation amends the code to remove the regulatory provisions in that chapter that are not related to the tax code and then pushes the regulatory provisions in the new newly created code, which is basically the permits Title six. So what we've done is we've separated the regulatory functions of providing a permit, which would be Title six, from just the acknowledging of doing business in the city. That should be the Title five. This will give the city some greater authority to address any problems that may arise from businesses that are in violation of our codes or various laws by, if necessary, suspending the Title six, which would then create the force. The business owner no longer be in business, but the Title five, if it remains in force, will allow us to collect taxes that are due.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Garden II. Gonzalez Pedro Licata O'Brian High Rasmussen so on president Burgess Eaton favorite and oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 35. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the creation of a Title 6 business license; adding a new Chapter 6.208 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.030, 5.32.150, 5.55.230, 6.10.005, 6.20.050, 6.214.310, 6.250.030, 6.500.140, 7.04.645, 21.16.060, 21.16.080, and 22.214.060 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118565 | Speaker 2: Agenda item number 4010. Spill 118 565. Relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the director of Seattle Public Utilities to execute amendments to Wheeling agreements between the City of Seattle Inner City Water District and between the City of Seattle and Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Can we recommend the bill pass?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So this legislation basically amends the water wheeling agreement that we have with the North City Water District and the Olympic view water and Sewer District. So basically SBU, the utilities department sells water wholesale to 31 municipalities or water districts in our region. And this legislation amends our agreement with the North City Water District and Olympic view water and Sewer District and basically provides better rate predictability for these two very important wholesale customers for their constituents. The agreement basically uses the same rate formula. Unless there are major changes in some kind of assistance system assets or uses that are not contemplated in the agreement. And the two utilities will also be able to give input on system projects and with costs that could affect their wheeling rate. So the committee recommends approval of these agreements.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Got him. Gonzalez. Harrell. Licata O'Brian. Rasmussen. I want President Burgess.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 41 through the first semicolon. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to execute amendments to wheeling agreements between The City of Seattle and North City Water District and between The City of Seattle and Olympic View Water and Sewer District. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118588 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item 41 Constable 118 588 relating to Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Herald Thank you very much. So this legislation basically approves a joint project between the City of Seattle and the King County for I think many of your following the ship Canal Water Quality Project. And so basically in this capacity, the the major provisions in this joint agreement identifies who has what responsibility, who has regulatory responsibilities, what the deliverables are, and establishes a project schedule and costs in cost sharing agreement and ensured the cost between the county and the city are shared. 65% Seattle and 35%. King County. And the you know, the relationship and the negotiations between the county and SPU have been positive and collaborative and very consistent with our water quality goals. Councilmember Bagshaw amended the legislation to include a requirement that SPP, you submit twice per year a written report on the status of this project to the Council. And again, by way of context to ship canal water, water quality project is part of our compliance with the consent degree requirements and will be fully, hopefully fully completed in the year 2024. The committee recommends approval of these agreements, this agreement.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And do you have an amendment? Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 0: That. Oh, shoot.
Speaker 1: I have it here. I'll move the amendment to Council Bill 118588 which removes the word west from the project description in section two. So Section two will now read the director of Seattle Public Utilities will prepare and submit to the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee or the Appropriate Council Committee, a semiannual written progress report focusing on the Ship Canal Water Quality Project. Removes the word west from before ship. Is there a second? Second? Questions. All in favor of the amendment. Photo I oppose vote no. The amendment is adopted. Are there any questions or comments on the ordinance as amended? Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 118588.
Speaker 2: Gordon Gonzalez. Harrell. I look ata O'Brien. Rasmussen.
Speaker 6: So on.
Speaker 2: President Burgess.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Aden favor unopposed.
Speaker 1: A bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items 42 and 43. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a Joint Project Agreement with King County to design, construct, operate, and maintain the Ship Canal Water Quality Project, in partial fulfillment of the objectives of the Consent Decree authorized under Ordinances 123908 and 124129, and the “Plan to Protect Seattle’s Waterways” authorized under Ordinance 124766, to reduce Combined Sewer Overflows; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CF 314278 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments listed in agenda items 48 and 49. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The appointments are confirmed. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 53.
Speaker 2: Of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item 50 Quirk File 314 27 Petition of ACORN Development LLC for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 21 Sarah April 2nd Addition to the city of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, Seventh Avenue, Blanchard Street and Eighth Avenue, the committee recommends that the full council grant the petition as a condition to with the divided report with councilmembers Rasmussen Gordon back Sean Burgess in favor and Councilmember Liccardo opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our rules require that the majority position go first, councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This petition is seeking the vacation of a daily in the Denny Triangle. It's the fourth vacation petition to enable Amazon to build out its campus. The three previous vacations were approved by the Council upon the condition that a variety of public benefits be provided and that Amazon pay all fees and of course pay for the full costs of the property that they would be acquiring. This alley runs north and south through the entire block is bordered on the north by Bell Street, on the south by Blanchard Street, and on the West by Seventh Avenue, in the East by Eighth Avenue. The vacation would allow for the development of two buildings on the site, a 23 storey tower where the street level read. Hell on the north and an eight storey office building with retail on the south portion of the block. The vacation allows more flexibility of floor plate configuration. Rotation of the towers for more light and air at the street level. And a greater ability to control solar heat exposure. Better circulation for the public, including pedestrians and bicyclists. A pedestrian through block connection. More efficient. Underground parking. Elimination of vehicle access across seventh Avenue, which is going to be a project to protect a bike lane. And Blanchard Street, which has a green street and then a reduction of vehicle access on Bell Street into the site, which is also a green street. A green street. There's been an extensive public review process since the petition was filed in February. The Seattle Design Commission held three meetings in March, May and June and finally recommended by an eight zero vote in June that the issues that had been of concern had been resolved. And also they approved the public benefit package.
Speaker 5: Pardon me.
Speaker 4: The Downtown Design Review Board on September eight considered the petition, and the petitioner received a40 vote of approval. The project has gone through a master use permit review by DPD and there have been community meetings, including with the Dennie Triangle, Neighborhood Association, Bell Town Community Council, Housing and Land Use Subcommittee and the South Lake Union Planning and Policy Committee. The City Council Transportation Committee has reviewed the petition twice, including a public hearing on November 24th and public comment at that meeting as well as on December eight during the Transportation Committee review. The committee learned the following that there had been extensive review by city departments, and that review was led and coordinated by the Seattle Department of Transportation. The Roadway Structures and Street Improvement Permitting section of our start recommended stated no concerns and recommended approval of the proposed vacation. The Parks Department stated it has no concerns given the proposed public benefits benefits that the city would gain. The utility's SPU stated it had no facilities in the alley and recommended the vacation be granted and City Light and CenturyLink said that they are working with the petitioner to relocate their facilities and they have no objection. The Department of Planning and Development made two significant comments the Disney Triangle Neighborhood Plan approved by the City Council and key strategy number one I state said the city should simplify and create a means to expedite the early vacation process to encourage residential and commercial development. Again, this is a recommendation for this neighborhood. Secondly, DPD stated that the proposed alley vacations are intended intended to accommodate a high density commercial development, which is consistent with the zoning and the vision for the area in the Disney Triangle Neighborhood Plan and the Downtown Urban Center Plan. Our review and approval of vacations is based upon our vacation policies that have been adopted by the City Council by resolution over many years. Those policies were developed to provide clear guidance to the petitioners and to the city staff, and also to inform the public as to how we review and how we make decisions with regard to vacation petitions. They're also developed to ensure that all applicants are treated equally, consistently, objectively with fairness and predictability, to ensure that the public interest is served. We also identify and define within our resolutions what we mean by public interest. It includes protection of the public trust, taking into consideration the effect on circulation, access, utilities, light air, open space views, protection from land use, adverse land use impacts, and the provision of long term public benefits. The Department of Transportation revealed that the transportation issues, including pedestrian and bicycle impacts and determined that the vacation will not have an adverse transportation impact and will not impair the function of the adjacent streets. The department also determined that the typical functions of an alley that will be provided will be provided on site if the alley is vacated, including an internal loading dock, three vehicle access points, two driveways on eighth Avenue, one exit, only driveway onto Bell Street. The Design Commission also worked by the petitioner to ensure that the driveway openings are as narrow as possible, but there will be no vehicle access. As I said earlier, from Blanchard or Seventh Avenue to minimize the impact on the green streets of Bell and Blanchard and to eliminate vehicles crossing Seventh Avenue, which will be a separated cycle track constructed at the petitioner's expense. The parking proposed for the project is compliant with our land use code and accommodate slightly more cars and bikes in the vacation than without the vacation. Also, Amazon, in order to reduce the amount of traffic coming to and from the site, provides all employees with an ARC keycard and has an aggressive transportation demand management plan to encourage employees to walk, bike or take transit to their site. With regard to the utilities, as I said earlier, there are fewer utilities on this site than in other downtown sites. There are no SPU facilities, Seattle Public Utility Facilities. And again, City Light and CenturyLink are working with the petitioner to relocate their facilities and they do not object with regard to light, air, open space and views. The block will have a total of 27,000 square feet of street level, open space, pedestrian amenities and a diagonal pedestrian through block connection. There will be significantly more open space for the public after the vacation than without their vacation and start fires. No issues here with regard to light, air office space and views in terms of the other standard that we apply protection from adverse land use impacts. The vacation review determines that if the post determines whether or not the post vacation development would be consistent with land use patterns in the area, and that view is guided by our city policies and codes that apply to the site. This block is zoned downtown mixed commercial that's called DMS 3340 slash to 90, Dash 400, and it allows for a maximum height of 340 feet for portions of the project containing nonresidential use. This block block 21 is in a different zone than block 20, which is just to the south and the council approve of vacation there. That block is the downtown office core to a dock to which allows nonresidential up to 400 feet. This block, block 21 is going to be a lower, more moderate scale site for office, retail and commercial use. This zone is to be a transition site between the more intensive Dakota area and the surrounding lower scale commercial mixed use or residential areas. This area is in one of the city's five urban centers, and our city staff have determined that the proposed amendment with the vacation is consistent with the zoning and our city policies as an urban center. Our policies provide that there should be a balance between what the public gives up and what the petition acquires through the vacation process. The benefits most benefit the general public and must be separate and above any other amenities provided to meet the code or the other requirements. The Council has approved Ali vacations earlier by Amazon on three other blocks 14, 19 and 20, and the public benefits provided in exchange for those vacations include the seventh Avenue Cycle track shared use street and has pedestrian facilities. West Lake Avenue Street Improvements. Blanchard's Street ten foot setback in has right away improvements artworks. Additional overhead weather protection, the purchase of a fourth streetcar. The public benefits proposed for this vacation art will complement and expand the benefits provided by the three previous vacations approved by the Council. The public benefits focus on the exterior of the block rather than inward focusing, and improvements to the neighborhood are set out in your materials. There's a very long list of those public benefits, and I won't repeat all those, but the public benefits will enhance the public experience, including pedestrians and bicyclists around the entire site. Following all of this review by our city departments, our Department of Transportation, which again has a lead for assembling the comments and review, found that the project is consistent with our adapted our adopted street vacation policies and that similar impacts between a vacation and a no vacation development alternative for the site would occur. The vacation alternative provides considerable flexibility to the developer and the use of the site both above and below grade, including allowing for a single garage for services and parking for the project. And finally, the flexibility on the site also allows for the provision of open space and other public benefits. Following the public hearing that we held the public comments and the reviews of the record. And over the course of two meetings, the committee determined that the vacation petition and the public benefit set aside city policies and in addition, are consistent with the previous benefits that have been required by the city from Amazon and which were previously approved by this Council. The Transportation Committee recommends approval upon the condition that the petitioner complies with the conditions that were set out in the November 3rd letter that November three, 2015 letter to the Transportation Committee from the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 8: Right. When you said majority prayer, I thought you were going to ask for the minority report. Yes.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Minority Report of one.
Speaker 8: Will be the last time we get something official. I guess my opposition to the legislation brought before us was based on the my concern that we are having more and more with refer to is privately owned public spaces in our downtown area. Generally these are conveyed through transfer development rights. In this instance, issue is through an employee vacation. But the objectives, this is the same 28,000 square feet of open space to allow the public to enjoy. The concerns were raised on how much access was denied to this area for expression of public speech and looking at what was in the agreement with the revocation. I notice that we did not have language that we had required in those privately owned public spaces that we acquire through a transfer development rights. So my position was that we could amend the agreement to include language that would be similar to the open conditions governing open space under TDRS, which is long established. It is not 2024 seven open space. There is actually time limits on it and it's in the behavior there as well as is regulated as it would be anywhere else with FEMA speech. So that was defeated in committee. I think this is an important issue not just necessary for this property, but for setting a standard that I believe we should be looking at for any open space that's being created primarily, I mean, particularly in a downtown area where the density is increasing. We now had, I think, 50,000 people living downtown. So I would move actually that in this instance we need a fuller discussion on how we can accomplish this and we might as well begin with this property. So I would like to move to we refer this to the Transportation Committee second.
Speaker 1: It's moved in, seconded that item 53 referred to the Transportation Committee. Is there any discussion? Sure. Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: I think the point that Councilmember McCotter brought up is an important one. One thing that is important to know is that the concerns that he has with regard to public access and the rules and regulations that govern the part of the property that was granted as part of the public benefit package really is included in our property and use and development agreement. Last at our last City Council meeting, we approved a property and use and development agreement. We call it a powder for short that says virtually what councilmember wanted to require and this conceptual approval. And so we have delegated this responsibility of ensuring that the public has, in this case, the one in South Lake Union by Vulcan. It was blocked 93 that all of you approved states that the except as otherwise provided in this agreement public access shall be allowed 24 hours a day every day of the year to the following public benefit elements on the property. And then there is a list of the properties that qualified as the public benefit elements, and they have to be open and accessible and it has to be signed that they are open and accessible to the public. There is one option that the owner has or right that the owner has, and it says that the owner may adopt reasonable rules and regulations regarding use of and access to such public benefit elements as are necessary to ensure the security of the users of their public benefit elements and the development. So that type of concern that is that we make sure that this space that has been granted as a public benefit, that it remain open to the public, is required in the Property Use and Development Agreement, which is adopted by ordinance by the City Council. It does grant the owner, though, to develop reasonable rules and regulations with regard to the safety of the users of the public space. The concern that I have with regard to councilmembers motion is that we're seeking to adopt a in this condition, a condition that we have adopted for transfer of development rights, and we haven't established this condition when we make these decisions with regard to the conceptual approval. So I do think that we should review all of our city vacation policies next year. Another issue that is came up last during the discussion, I think it was last year with regard to the Whole Foods sites related to employer employee relations or labor standards. And at that time, the Council agreed that that was not part of the criteria for determining whether or not it's in the public interest to vacate a site. And we agreed that we were going to review our policies that we've adopted carefully by resolution to ensure transparency and equity and openness, that we were going to review those this year, and it didn't happen. I think that we need to have a comprehensive review of those policies, make a determination if we want to include this kind of policy in the consideration or labor standards as well. And then any applicant moving forward would know exactly what the rules are. But I don't think that we should start enacting rules now that we haven't applied before.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
Speaker 6: Councilmember one Councilmember Rasmussen is correct that. That discussion. On what? Exactly constitutes a public benefit and the question of the evolution of that definition, which is necessary and it is something that I argued for when we were voting on the Whole Foods early vacation bill. It's true that that that real discussion didn't happen, which is precisely why I think this should be referred to the Transportation Committee so that the discussion can happen. This is not an alley vacation for just any company. This is Amazon. This is a behemoth. And I think this should be done extremely thoughtfully. And as far as public spaces are concerned. I don't think the question is about whether the public has a right to walk around there. The question is about whether or not, though, for example, the workers or the contract workers, workers that are contracted by Amazon for security or other purposes have the right to express their own issues as workers on the Amazon campus or not. And I think these are these issues, not just about that, but broadly on public benefit are important enough that they should be thought about, oh, you in a in a much more deliberate manner than just rushing this through.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: As we talk through making an alley vacation or a street vacation, what we're talking about doing is taking something that is existing in the public right away and transferring that to private ownership. And part of this process, of course, is about compensating us and making offsetting investments to make us whole. The the issue around free speech, I think is a really important one because folks have a pretty clear understanding of what their free speech rights are in a public right away and what they are allowed to do. They don't need to go look up a public use and development agreement to understand what's going on. And because we're taking that away and this process and trying to put back something similar but some access to Civic Plaza, I think it's really important that we get the specifics right. I personally as a councilmember, have been at a public plaza and been approached by private security guards saying, you know, you need to move your sign that can't be here while you're eating and things like that. It's probably true that that in some puta that they didn't have the right to do that. But even as a councilmember, I didn't have the capacity to go find that and confront them. And so I think this is an important enough decision that I support Councilmember Carter's move to refer this back to committee. Let's examine what we can do around First Amendment, including possible things around training or maybe public notice. So folks see clearly what they're allowed and not to do in these these kind of quasi public open spaces.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I want to echo sort of the the need to to be judicious as we move forward with this particular issue. As a civil rights lawyer, as somebody who has studied the Constitution, I think that these issues are quite complicated and don't want us to hastily pass some sort of provision around free speech or First Amendment as it relates to these street alley vacations. I'm hopeful that if we take a little bit of time and I'm not sure if Councilmember Walcott is amenable to setting a date certain on his motion to refer back to the Transportation Committee. But I do think it is this is a very critically important issue that requires us to be very deliberate and thoughtful around. And I hope that we give ourselves the opportunity to do that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments to Councilmember Liccardo?
Speaker 8: To answer to answer Cotner Gonzalez's question, I would recommend to the first meeting of the Transportation Committee of next year.
Speaker 1: Any other comments? I'm a rapper. Yeah. I'm going to oppose the motion to refer back because of some of the reasons that my colleagues have cited. This is about due process and it's about fairness. This L.A. vacation has gone through an extensive review process exactly as city procedures and rules require. And it has met all of the conditions that the City of Seattle sets for this kind of L.A. vacation. And to introduce a new topic now, and I might add, a topic that is already covered in the regulations that will apply to this open space, I think is very inappropriate at the last minute. This came up a couple of years ago with another property in West Seattle, and some members of the council asked for a review of these things and whether or not our policy should be amended. And then they chose not to pursue that. However, we just, in our budget actions here last month allocated some funds. And I know that Councilmember O'Brien in his committee, beginning in January, is going to consider the issue of revisiting the Street and Ali vacation rules and regulations. I think that's very appropriate. But to say to an applicant who has for an extended period of time gone through the city process that we said that now we're going to stop that process and change the rules, I think is very unfair and strikes at the core of how we govern our city and how we do due process. So I think it's not appropriate to refer this matter back to committee. The motion before us is Councilmember Lookat is motion to refer this matter back to the transportation committee. Those in favor vote I right. Please raise your hands. Those opposed, vote no and raise your hands. The vote is 4 to 4 and the motion fails.
Speaker 4: So thank you. Council members. I think it's a very good discussion. It I do agree with Councilmember Burgess and I said this at the committee meeting, too. When we say because we don't like a business or are opposed to a certain business, we're going to change the rules for that business alone, for city policies and procedures and decisions. I think that's a very dangerous and slippery slope. What what entity, what person, what business is next if they're not popular with a particular council member? I think it's really dangerous and we should have fair and objective policies. That is why we adopted those by resolution to ensure that we're not singling out any one petitioner large or small bakery or a large corporation. And I oppose that kind of arbitrary decision making that I have heard here. What I would offer, though, is if council members are not comfortable with the Department of Transportation and our Department of Planning and Development setting the public access rules through the property and use and development agreement, we could consider the language that Councilmember Liccardo proposed at the committee meeting. It's very similar to what is included in the property use and development agreement. So I would I have copies of what he distributed to the committee. It was what the Divided report was based upon and I would move that you consider this so that we can move along. One of the concerns I have about holding this over to next year, so we're going to have three new council members. They have not been been the beneficiaries of the public hearing. They're going to have to start again. And I think that that is going to, again, undermine our whole process, object of objectivity and clarity about how we define the public interest. So if I would like to move this language to add to the clerk, file the conditional approval, and I would be happy to distribute it to all of you and I would be happy to read it into the record, too.
Speaker 1: Why don't you read it into the record? We all have it. It's part of the Divided report.
Speaker 4: This is the language proposed by Councilmember Liccardo. Free speech activities such as handling, signature gathering and holding signs all without obstructing access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed while engaged and allowing activities in allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. So I think this addresses the points that were raised, including asking people to leave the site. And so I would move this amendment to the FERC file.
Speaker 1: And this would become one of the conditions that the council would impose on this alley vacation. Is there a second second? It's moved in second and that we had this language as a condition for the vacation. Is there any further discussion? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: So just to for some clarity, is this do we need to suspend the rules to introduce an amendment to a bill that hasn't been provided this late in the game?
Speaker 1: This was part of the divided report that was presented to all of us.
Speaker 7: Sure, there was there wasn't an amendment prepared that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: I said, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: And so so.
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask the clerk to advise us on that issue.
Speaker 2: This amendment was not provided in advance, nor before the 12 new deadline for today. So it's a rule to a motion to suspend the rules as necessary.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I would move to suspend the rules so that this amendment can be considered. And the spirit of that is that we all knew this language. We knew the issue. It was presented to us in writing. And so I would move to suspend the rules. So it's moved in second and that we suspend the rules. Any comments or questions about that? Council Member O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so I didn't realize that this amendment was going to be presented. I would I'm going to vote against suspending the rules. And the reason is I would actually like to look at the language in that amendment and make further amendments to it. But because we're talking about free speech and our policies, I'm not comfortable making those decisions on the spot up here and would prefer to have time to have legal review.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? Those in favor of suspending the rules in order to consider this amendment. I'm sorry. Oh, council member. So on.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to say for the record that I concur with Council member O'Brien's point about this free speech is too important. We can't just rush to this amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? Those in favor of suspending the rules to consider this amendment vote. I opposed vote. No.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. We're going to have to do that again. And those in favor, please vote I by raising your hand. Those opposed vote no. The motion is approved. We now have the amendment before us. Are there any further comments on the amendment? Councilmember Rasmus Thank.
Speaker 4: You. These this amendment will address the scenario that Councilmember O'Brien described. It's also consistent with the kind of requirements that are in the property and use and development agreement agreements that we have approved in the past. So I believe it addresses those concerns. However, again, I urge my colleagues in the forthcoming years to treat all people equally regardless of who the the petitioner is and who is before this council. And I that is, I think, critically important. I encourage you, if you want to adopt new policies related to vacation petitions, you do that in open public process and you do it through a public hearings and you adopt the use by resolution, not based upon case by case, depending upon whether you like that person, like that business or not. That is not, I think, due process by any stretch of stretch of the imagination. And I think that we have a very strong public benefit package. It will significantly improve the pedestrian experience in the Denny Triangle. It's consistent, as DPD said, with the visions and the plans for the Denny Triangle, not Amazon's plans, but the city's plans for the Denny Triangle. And so they are meeting all of our public benefit requirements. They're paying full market value for that property, and they're going to be contributing significantly to low income housing funds and other needs that we have in the city.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: So I'm going to need a little parliamentary help here. So I would like to amend the amendment, and I don't know if we need to suspend the rules again. No. To do that. Okay.
Speaker 1: But hopefully your amendment is going to be easily understood. And.
Speaker 7: Well, what I would like to do is require that there is. Signage on the site so that the public can be aware of what their First Amendment rights are in this space. And again, because this amendment wasn't presented as an amendment before, I haven't had time to work this up so I can kind of just make things up on the fly. And so maybe I'll let some other folks comment. We'll all work on some language to scribble down here.
Speaker 4: If I may. I say I think that's a friendly amendment that's consistent with what we include, that kind of language on our property and and development agreements. And the agreement that all of us approved just on November 30th says that that a summary of the rules is posted invisible locations in the development. So if that we have that language and if you want to state more specifically about the ability of the public to to use the site, ensure that the public can pass through or use a public benefit regardless of whether such use by the public is associated with the development. There's really great language in the property use and development agreement that we passed. We could. Crafted from that, cobble it from that. But I agree with you on the notice to the public. I have already gone to developers when I've seen that these public sites are not well signed, that don't look like they are open and welcoming to the public and ask them to change the signage so that everyone knows that they have the right to go through that site and use it even if it's on private property.
Speaker 1: So our resident expert is here. Mr. Barnett, I'm wondering if I could ask you if the signage requirement is covered in the terms and in the puta and proper posting. And you're answering. Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Can we ask her to come to the microphone?
Speaker 1: Could you step up to the microphone, please, and introduce yourself and tell the vast audience who you are?
Speaker 2: Yes. I'm Beverly Barnett with Seattle Department of Transportation and I will be administering this. We do require signage on all of the public spaces, and that would be one of the standard conditions. So whatever language the council imposes today, we would work out how to have that signed on. The public spaces related to the Amazon project.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So, Councilmember O'Brien, I think your concern is already addressed. And based on the testimony of Ms.. Barnett, do you still want to make your amendment?
Speaker 7: Yes, because I haven't a chance to review exactly what that signage is. I would like something that explicitly states that people would have the ability, the public has the ability to demonstrate protest, leaflet and other acts of expressions of their own First Amendment rights. I can look at this. One thing I'll just note Councilmember Rasmussen talked about fairly and treating everyone fairly, and I agree with treating folks fairly. We wouldn't be here if folks had allowed the full extra week from the Divided report last week. We would have had time to address this beforehand. And so I feel like we're making some exceptions for a specific person or entity as opposed to following our normal procedures when there's a divided report coming out of committee to allow us time to work on that. But if someone else wants to talk, I'll read what you just handed me. Councilman Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: We probably will have to cobble language from that, but I think it carries out your intent. The reason for moving this through now, consistent with council rules, is we're going into an hour long recess holidays and we're going to have a new council next year. That's very that's extraordinary that I think in this case warrants following this rule where we can bring it before the council at this time.
Speaker 1: President Burgess Council Member So on.
Speaker 6: I, I think that it's just simply not true and not honest to say that somehow it would be unfair to Amazon if we delayed this vote to re refer it to the transportation committee. I don't know, other than Amazon executives and major shareholders who are raking the profits in at the expense of so many workers and so many people all over, especially in this region. I don't know of anybody who thinks that somehow Amazon is as a corporation is the same as any other human being. These are the fact that this vote is being expedited without giving it the due two weeks for the debate. A report itself is an example of how big business changes the rules all the time. And the reason they're able to do that is because so many elected officials are in favor of corporate interests and are not looking out for workers. And I wanted to add to what Councilmember O'Brien had said. You know, last year I was at a demonstration of workers on the Amazon campus. These workers are security guards, security personnel who have been who are being denied their lawful, safe and sick time as required by Seattle's labor law. And when the workers asked to speak to someone in charge, the Amazon representative asked them to move away from the compound and on the sidewalk in the rain, and they were not allowed to talk to anybody inside the building. And he didn't, of course, know that there was an elected official with the workers at that time and wrote to make sure that we remember that the workers who are organizing there are demanding nothing more than that the employer follow that law. And I don't think that anybody who is being honest and who is truly concerned about the interests of workers would be under any illusion that the that the process, the political process at this moment is fair and objective towards workers. It is extremely biased towards corporations. And that is why when it's a question of free speech and the question of a, you know, a mega corporation like Amazon, we should not be rushing through. If we are trying to be responsible, we should be being thoughtful.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I just want to I just want to hail back to the comments I made in support of the motion to hold this over, to give us a little bit more time to work through the tricky nature of crafting some First Amendment protections. I think the fact that we're all scurrying up here trying to craft some language to get clarity around what we're talking about is a case in point as to why I think we needed to suspend this for a very short period of time to address what I think were reasonable concerns brought up around freedom of speech that were flagged by Councilmember Licata. You know, there are other questions that I have, for example, around, you know, what does it mean to unreasonably interfere with somebodies enjoyment of the space? I don't I don't know where that's defined. I don't know if that's defined in the PDA. I'd like to be able to sort of consider what that actually means. And so, again, this is just an example of of, I think, needing us to be thoughtful and judicious about how we move forward on this. I recognize that the public benefits piece around this is significant. I commend Amazon for the contributions that they have made in regards to that. But I think that this is a reasonable request. I've heard from Amazon that they are amenable to agreeing to and have agreed to freedom of speech requirements via the PDP. UDAS And I want to make sure that that we are again setting up a process where it's fair and collaborative in terms of defining exactly what the contours of those conditions would be.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The parliamentarian has informed me that our vote to suspend the rules did not achieve the two thirds required vote to suspend the rules. So this amendment will not be considered. I would move to hold this item and bring it back to full council on Monday, January four, excuse me, Monday, January 11. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: I thought people did want to hold it.
Speaker 1: Well, that motion failed for lack of a second.
Speaker 7: Is it.
Speaker 1: To reconsider? Want to advise you that it's very clear that if we continue voting on this, we're going to have a 4 to 4 split. So I think it would be best to.
Speaker 7: Is it out of order to reconsider Council Member Mercado's motion to read, to refer it to the Intelligence Committee?
Speaker 1: We could reconsider that. But there's a motion on the floor right now. I think it's. Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 3: Assuming your motion failed, I guess it could be perhaps made again. I was just trying to take I was taking pause to understand where we were when you explained that the motion to suspend the rules failed because of two.
Speaker 1: To requires a two thirds vote, and we did not have.
Speaker 3: That. I was wondering if we could revolt, that perhaps that vote would change and we can then suspend the rules. Is that a possibility? You don't want to go through that again. Oh, I like the we haven't spoke substantively on the issue yet because I was waiting for the right opening. I wanted to lay that out because I was hoping we could actually resolve this today. It was my preference that.
Speaker 1: That's my preference as well. But I think that's not likely.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 1: So my motion to refer this to full council on January 11 fails for lack of a second. What is the wish of the body?
Speaker 8: I think I got.
Speaker 1: Council member Gordon.
Speaker 0: I was going to say that in reading the the section one B to page six makes it so perfectly clear that free speech activities such as handling, signature gathering and holding signs all without access to the space, the building or other adjacent amenity features, and without unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of the space by others shall be allowed. And according to Miss Barnett, thank you very much for coming. That will be posted prominently and while engaged and allowed activities. Members of the public may not be asked to leave for any reason other than by conduct that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the space by others. I mean, that seems to me perfectly clear and it's certainly consistent and it seems to me that we should go ahead with this. And as a matter of fact, we did take it up twice at the Carers Protection Committee, had a public hearing and did vote upon it. There was a last minute proposal by Council member Le Carter which failed. It is a divided report and I think we should go ahead with it. Are you moving it? Should I ask that we move it?
Speaker 4: Abrahams, Assistant of Music, I believe.
Speaker 6: I call for the question. President Burgess.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question has been called for. But colleagues clearly were divided on this issue and.
Speaker 4: So Bruce keeps one because I right.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Harrell Because we are divided and I assume that if we proceeded with a vote it fails. We sort of go back to revisiting it anyway. So I'd like to actually renew your motion to hold it till January 11th. Electorate renew that.
Speaker 1: Motion. I'll second that motion. Are there any comments on that motion? Council Member So what?
Speaker 6: I just had my hand up earlier. I wanted to go back to guns from a Ryan's point about reconsidering the amount of guns umbrella cut as motion to refer it to the transportation committee. And I believe for reconsidering calling it for reconsideration requires the losing side. So one of us who voted yes on it has to make the motion and I'm willing to make the motion.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a motion on the floor now. So if this fails, then you can go to that reconsideration. So the motion is to send this to to hold this and bring it back to full council on Monday, January 11. Any further comments? Councilman Earle.
Speaker 3: Thanks for your patience there.
Speaker 1: Councilman Burgess. I told you this morning we'd be in to the dinner hour.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to assure. Council members want that in making the motion. My thinking is we have almost four weeks to figure this out because we'll be around. We'll have. I think we will because we'll be here next week. And even we don't have to take vacation. We'll be around and we have the week of the fourth. But I think perhaps you're thinking it goes back to committee for more discussion. And I don't. That wasn't the intent of my motion to have. That was just to resolve these issues and get it to the full council. So.
Speaker 6: Again, I respond to that.
Speaker 0: Yes, members.
Speaker 6: Thank you, guys. Remember how. Yes. In terms of just time, you're right that there is that ordinarily, I think that would be a good amount of time. But I have two specific concerns. One is that just realistically speaking, I don't think the council will be deliberating on this because it's holiday season and this is the last one council. Everybody has other commitments, family commitments. I think this is an important issue. And I think that to do justice to it and not not not make a commitment that I don't think we're going to be able to keep. But more importantly, I think there's a difference between referring it to the committee as opposed to bringing it back to full council. The reason we're advocating to bring it back to committee is because we there are issues that need to be discussed and full council is not. The forum that facilitates that discussion. It has to happen at the committee level. So that's what I would say.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The motion before us is to hold this item and bring it back to full council on Monday, January 11. All in favor. Vote I by raising your hand. I opposed. Vote no. The motion carries. This item is held until January 11. Please read item 51. It's. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Acorn Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 21, Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle, bounded by Bell Street, 7th Avenue, Blanchard Street, and 8th Avenue. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12142015_CB 118592 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item 51 Constable 118 592 vacating the South 168 feet of the alley adjacent to Lot 17 through 24, lying between block 55 and BLOCK 56. Boston Company's plat of West Seattle near the Alaskan just excuse me. Junction, excuse me. Standing in the West Seattle neighborhood of Seattle on the Petitioner Fauntleroy Place, LLC, in ratifying confirming certain prior acts committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: This petition has all the requirements of the City Council and the conditional approval have been met, including all of the public benefits. And the committee has reviewed that and the all of the departments have recommended approval and the committee recommends approval as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Sure. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Garden.
Speaker 2: I. Gonzalez. Harrell, Licata, I. O'Brien Rasmussen. All right. So on President Burgess eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? So I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the service of Councilmember Licata. Councilmember Rasmussen and Councilmember Gordon. This is the last formal meeting of the City Council where these three members will be present, and we appreciate your dedicated public service to the people of Seattle. You've all served with distinction and with integrity, and that's important in our democratic society. Do any of my colleagues wish to share any comments?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Harrell Well, I had a lot of time in a speech lined up for each one of you a piece.
Speaker 1: Please go ahead.
Speaker 3: But it's 522 and I think Councilmember Gonzalez and I have a 6:00 appointment. So in all seriousness, I just want to say it's been my my honor serving with the three of you. I think he's just served with distinction and commitment to the people of Seattle. Never expected to agree with all of you when I got elected, because I haven't found that human being yet that I agree with all the time. But certainly my respect for the three of you is at an all time high and I don't think you're going anywhere. Hopefully so. We'll hopefully still be the beneficiary of your sage advice. But it's been my honor serving with the three of you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Thanks. I. I've been on the council for six years, and I don't know what a council would look like without the three of you. So it's going to be a brave new world we're heading into. Perhaps more importantly, I don't know what it's going to look like with the three of you on the outside as advocates. And I look forward to continuing to hear your positions and opinions as we move forward. So thanks for your public service for so many years.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember someone.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmembers Jean Gardner and Dan Rasmussen. I think we had some really great discussions and lively debates and we also had agreement on various things. I mean, one of the things that was of real consequence and it's evident today, which is through the wage theft enforcement ordinance, that one of the factors in that whole process coming that coming to fruition was the statement of legislative intent that I drafted, that Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Rasmussen supported, and the full council voted on that in the Budget Committee, which, you know that I'm grateful for those kinds of opportunities where we were able to do that. And Councilmember Legarda, of course, you know, we've had. I have. I mean, you've been on the council for a long time, but for my two years I've had a really wonderful time getting to know you and working with you on so many important issues. And even though you won't be here, you know, formally on this body, I have no doubt and I have every hope that you will be a part of building this historic movement that we have started to build, not only in Seattle, but nationwide. I think the whole nation should have the benefit of your experience and your true dedication to the interests of workers and those who are marginalized. Seattle has been really, really fortunate to have you, and I hope that we continue to get, you know, even more of a benefit of your of your activism. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Let's remember, Gordon.
Speaker 0: Well, I just want to say it's been such a pleasure to serve. I can't tell you. I really thought after a long newspaper career, this was the frosting on the cake. And it has been. There have been so many wonderful things that we've been able to do. And I'm so grateful to the voters for electing me. I'm so grateful for my fellow council members for putting up with me. And I would have been rather disappointed if we hadn't had at least one little controversy on this last, final council meeting very much.
Speaker 1: Council Member Lakota.
Speaker 8: I will make this mercifully short on time. It's been a pleasure working with all of you. I've really enjoyed your honesty and great open discussions and the last meeting to go to. Well, what a great, joyful struggle. And we accomplished a lot.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. And I can't wait until you're on the other side of that podium addressing you as a citizen. And we can stop you after your 2 minutes. Thank you. Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: Thank you. As customer Gordon said, it's been an incredible privilege and a joy to be a member of the city council. The first time I was up here, I was so nervous I could not stand up to speak and I just hope that I wasn't breaking the council rule. So it took a while to become comfortable, to stand to speak here. Now I'm ready to leap to my feet, just as Councilmember Harrell often does. So I feel like I've grown in this job. And also I think Councilmember Swan made a very good point. While we have disagreements at times. I do think that we agree far, far more times and that sometimes our styles are different. But I think that our goals of having a just equitable society in this city and moving what we are able to do here out into the state and nationally and even internationally is is the same . And so sometimes a lot is made out of a few disagreements. And it's interesting in that we've always been accused of being such a polite city council and and such a boring city council that when there is a disagreement, it's almost headlines. So I, I thought that the discussion this afternoon was, was productive and healthy. And I hope that we have more productive, healthy discussions in the future. And again, thank you. I've really welcomed working with all of you, including of all of our wonderful staff, our clerk's office, our central staff, my staff, which is now nearing, I think , a dozen after about 12 years. So it's been great working with with all of you. Thank you so much. And Beverly Barnett, of course, all the staff to their wonderful.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: So as the as the freshman the newest member on the city council, I wanted to express my gratitude to councilmembers Licata and Gordon and Rasmussen. In the short two and a half weeks that I've been a city council member, I have already learned so much from from you all and am incredibly appreciative of the hard work and effort that it takes to be to be in this role and to serve the people of Seattle. So thank you to all three of you. I think I think between the three of you, you have decades and decades of service and you've left a long a long you're leaving a long legacy of really great promising work for the city of Seattle. And thank you so much for your service.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jean, Nick and Tom, thank you. You you've served well, so thank you very much. And we're adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE vacating the south 168 feet of the alley adjacent to Lots 17 through 24, lying between Block 55 and Block 56, Boston Company's Plat of West Seattle, near the Alaska Junction of the West Seattle neighborhood of Seattle, on the petition of Fauntleroy Place LLC (Clerk File 308171), and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118548 | Speaker 5: Agenda item for council bill 118548 relating to land use and zoning amending section to 3.478.04 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for the expansion of up to 20,000 square feet of existing medical services uses in neighborhood commercial ones zones. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: This bill amends the Seattle Municipal Code to allow transfer of funds from the construction and land use if authorized by ordinance. Among other things, the construction and land use fine receives revenue.
Speaker 0: Actually, Councilmember Lucado, we're on agenda item four right now.
Speaker 2: I thought I don't have one. My mistake.
Speaker 0: That's all right. Good, good, good practice. You're coming up. Very good.
Speaker 2: I'm all ready for that.
Speaker 0: Agenda item four. And I'm speaking to this on behalf of Councilmember O'Brien, whose excuse today this bill would amend the land use code to allow medical facilities that serve low income patients to expand in neighborhood commercial one zones. If they are located within urban centers or urban villages, the existing facilities would be permitted to expand from 10,000 square feet to a maximum of 20,000 square feet. And this is for medical facilities serving low income patients that are in existence today. Any questions or comments on agenda item four, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Back Shot by garden by Gonzalez Harrell Licata.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen I am president Burgess High seven in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read him. Agenda Read Agenda Item five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning, amending Section 23.47A.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code to allow for the expansion of up to 20,000 square feet of existing medical services uses in Neighborhood Commercial 1 zones. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118583 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item five Council Bill 118583 Relating to affordable housing authorizing the Director of the House Office of Housing to enter into and administer an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and the cities of Bellevue is a clerk in Moore, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond and Woodinville to create and operate a regional Equitable Development Initiative fund for the Puget Sound region and providing that 2015 appropriations for the RDA fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2016 fiscal year. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This legislation follows passage of Council Resolution 31547 over a year ago, which committed the city's financial participation in the Regional Equitable Development Initiative Fund, which is a regional transit oriented development acquisition fund that will assist in the acquisition of land for future development of affordable housing or preservation of existing affordable housing at or near major transportation facilities. That resolution was followed by a budget action where we dedicated $1 million in 2015 and 2016 to this particular fund council. Bill 118583 includes an Interlocal agreement that authorizes the Office of Housing to execute that agreement with our other regional partners, including King Snohomish and Pierce Counties and the East Side cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland , Issaquah, Kenmore and Mercer Island and Woodinville. This particular legislation, Operation Operationalize, is one of the strategies recommended by the growing Transit Communities three year planning effort led by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The Ready Fund, as this is referred to, is also included as one of the recommendations in the HALA Advisory Committee recommendations to the Mayor and Council on Affordable Housing. Any questions or comments, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Back shot by Gordon Gonzalez. Harrell. Right. Licata. I Rasmussen and President Burgess high seven in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item six.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item six Resolution 31636 reaffirming the city's commitment to gender pay equity and expressing the city's intent to join 100% talent a regional gender pay equity initiative as a founding member and to help implement the initiative as a means to strengthen gender pay equity in | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to affordable housing; authorizing the Director of the Office of Housing to enter into and administer an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County, and the cities of Bellevue, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, and Woodinville to create and operate a Regional Equitable Development Initiative Fund (REDI Fund) for the Puget Sound Region; and providing that 2015 appropriations for the REDI Fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2016 fiscal year. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118576 | Speaker 5: The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118576 relating to the city's criminal code amending Section 6.36.020 12 8.06.1 to oh 12 8.06.10.195. 12.1 4.080 12 8.16.030 12 8.20.100 12 8.24.010.150. 18.1 2.255 and 18.1 2.257 of the Seattle Municipal Code and adding sections 12.10 .150220 and 12 8.24.105 to the Seattle Municipal Code to conform the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law and make technical corrections, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herold.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So every year in Olympia, I should say after Olympia, pass a state law, as the city then changes both its criminal code and civil or traffic code to conform with those changes and make sure we are consistent. So this bill and the next bill are our annual attempts at doing that. This is on the criminal side and basically our municipal scheme of laws now will now be consistent with what was passed in 2015. More specifically, it creates the crimes of allowing the unauthorized practice of massage, violating a vulnerable adult protection order, violating in order to surrender a firearm, disclosing intimate images of a person without consent, furtively carrying a pistol, allowing a building to be used for the discharge of a firearm at a person and using selling or possessing powdered alcohol. It also adds a $15 fine to the penalty for violating a domestic violence protection order. And it changes the classification of a first offense escape, first offense escape, and expands the infraction of consuming marijuana to include marijuana concentrates. So those laws were changed this year, and these are the corresponding changes to our city's criminal code. The full council is recommended to pass these changes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 1: I'm still learning the rules here. I think I'm supposed to stand up.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Harrell, when we met in committee to discuss this particular.
Speaker 5: Ordinance, I.
Speaker 4: Think there was a concern that was expressed or at least questions that were expressed with regard to the particular amendment around 12, a point to 0.1 hundred in terms of opening or consuming marijuana products in.
Speaker 5: Public, and in particular concern around how that interplays.
Speaker 4: With.
Speaker 5: With enforcement and disparate enforcement in particular.
Speaker 4: And how in implementation around what a.
Speaker 5: Marijuana concentrate actually is and how that's going to be identified. And I thought there were questions raised about about that particular issue, and we were supposed to get more information about it. I'm not sure where.
Speaker 1: We.
Speaker 4: Left off.
Speaker 5: In terms of next steps with regard to.
Speaker 1: That particular piece of.
Speaker 4: This council bill.
Speaker 3: Sure. So one of the parts of the discussion at the committee table were how would our police department actually know how to enforce the new laws, this particular legislation? Quite candidly, we can't change the language of it because it's strictly adopts the same language that was adopted on the state level. So I think the follow up action is to make sure that once this law was passed, that the city attorney's office, possibility of coordination from the executive and the council sort of communicates to the police department and the police department communicates to us and the public how we are to enforce this, to make sure that the law , for example, on marijuana, that it's one of our least prioritized offenses, that the policies were in place to make sure that we look at disparate impacts. All of those are sure to comply. So the long winded way of saying is that the letter of the law is not change. We're simply adopting the letter in the letter of the state law in our municipal code. But the follow work between our Seattle Police Department and our city attorney is certainly still needed and I trust will be done. I don't think anything has happened between last week and today, but that's the kind of follow up work that we should have in our work, our action plan next year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Other questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Back shot by Gordon Gonzalez. I Harrell.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Look to I Rasmussen.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: And President Burgess seven in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item ten through the first semicolon.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 118577 relating to the city's traffic code. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s criminal code; amending Sections 6.36.020, 12A.06.120, 12A.06.180, 12A.06.195, 12A.14.080, 12A.16.030, 12A.20.100, 12A.24.010, 12A.24.150, 18.12.255, and 18.12.257 of the Seattle Municipal Code and adding Sections 12A.10.150, 12A.10.220, and 12A.24.105 to the Seattle Municipal Code to conform the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law and make technical corrections. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118577 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item ten Council Bill 118577 relating to the city's traffic code.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you again. Like the last bill, this is an adoption of the state law into our city code. And I think Councilmember Gonzalez makes an excellent point that as we look at the changes in municipal law and those officers who are charged with carrying out both the criminal and citation schemes that there needs be clear communication on what changes occur and how we are implementing that in a in a fair and consistent manner. These particular changes again are to the traffic code and specifically I'll just describe sort of the highlights. We changed the definition of electric assisted bicycle and modified the definition of an electric personal assisted assistive mobility device. I'm sure all of you know what those are. With respect to disabled parking, it defines an unauthorized use of a disabled parking placard and increases the classic classification of improper obtaining of disabled parking placard from an infraction to a crime. With respect to the crime of driving under the influence or a DUI, this legislation expands the safely off the roadway defense to physical control, to the crime of minor physical control, and authorizes a court to order a defendant to pay for the costs of pretrial electronic home monitoring. And it also expands the crime of driving while license suspended third degree to ex to include driving after being suspended for failing to pay child support, it expands to crime of circumventing an ignition ignition interlock device and ID to include requesting another person to start the car and requires that a sentence for circumventing the idea run consecutively with a sentence for DUI. So that would be consecutive sentencing. It creates the traffic infraction of keeping smoking or secreting marijuana in passenger compartment of the car. And last, it allows bicycle or mopeds to disregard a traffic control light that fails to activate because of the weight of the bicycle or moped. So again, those are changes in on the state law that were made last year that are now incorporated into our city code.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Back shot.
Speaker 4: By.
Speaker 1: Gordon Gonzalez, Harrell.
Speaker 2: Licata, I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen and President Burgess seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes in the. Chair will sign it. Please read item 11.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 11 Council Bill 118549. Related to cable television authorizing the mayor or the mayor's designee to enter into a renewed cable television franchise agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC, and authorizing the chief technology officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s traffic code; amending Sections 11.14.055, 11.14.184, 11.23.380, 11.23.400, 11.31.020, 11.34.020, 11.56.020, 11.56.025, 11.56.320, 11.56.350, 11.56.355, 11.57.310, 11.72.065, and 11.84.380 of the Seattle Municipal Code, adding Section 11.58.435 to the Seattle Municipal Code, and repealing Section 11.14.185 of the Seattle Municipal Code to conform the Seattle Municipal Code with changes in state law and make technical corrections. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118549 | Speaker 5: Agenda item 11 Council Bill 118549. Related to cable television authorizing the mayor or the mayor's designee to enter into a renewed cable television franchise agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC, and authorizing the chief technology officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So basically, this legislation after, I would say months and months of negotiating and and hearing community concerns and advocates for the underrepresented communities and all those who use these kinds of con cap services that we can regulate. This legislation approves a renewed cable franchise agreement. This is a ten year Comcast franchise agreement. And I'll sort of go through the benefits that were struck in this kind of renewal, I should say, in the context of this, is that the city's goal is always to improve competition and have stronger customer service and consumer protections at the core of what we're trying to do. We're trying to protect our consumers from all kinds of practices that would result in their detriment. The key benefits of this particular agreement are that Seattle will join Comcast's pilot program, where low income seniors now are eligible for the Internet Essentials discounted Internet program. Now, I think you summarized from my discussion this morning that after actually our committee meeting, we continue to look at what Comcast does in other cities. And there were where there was an agreement reached in Philadelphia, where, of course, Comcast is headquartered that we continue to look at. And based on that, we actually modify through a letter agreement, a letter representations, other benefits. And that was one of them, making sure that the Internet Essentials program now is extended to low income seniors. So we're very happy to have that part of this this presentation. Comcast will also increase its previously announced digital equity grant offered to Seattle a from a one time 50000 to 100000 per year for five years grants for a total of $500,000. Again, these are investments from Comcast to programs and organizations that are help us helping us reach the digital divide. Comcast will partner with the city to help at risk youth obtain devices such as laptop computers for accessing the Internet. In terms of public educational and government access channel or P.G. or Peg's, we will be looking at at $8 million in revenue over the course of this contract. Again, that was negotiated very hard by our team and I'll thank them at the conclusion of my remarks. We will have free cable connections and TV service to city buildings and schools that's valued at approximately $2 million will have a 30% discount on basic Tier two low income subscribers. We'll have 600 modems, two nonprofit organizations that's about valued at approximately $10 million. So basically, again, to put it in the context of what we do as a city, we cannot control prices on what Comcast charges customers for cable modems or cable TV. And that's one of the things that people want us to do. And we all often concern ourselves with the prices that some of these large corporations can charge our consumers, but we can increase competition. And by increasing competition, they drive down prices, drive up service, and we regulate or we have three cable franchises, CenturyLink, Wave and Comcast , just again, to put it in the in the context of what we can or cannot do. So again, this particular set of community benefits, I would do want to thank Michael Matt Miller, director of the Department of Information Technology, and Tony Perez, who's actually nationally respected for his ability to advocate on behalf of consumers. We want to thank you for this negotiation. This package does come recommended by our Citizens Telecommunications and Advisory Board as well. And so we want to thank you for that work. This did pass out of committee and we recommended adoption of this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harold, did we receive and maybe you distributed this and I just missed it. But did we have the letter from Comcast pledging these additional benefits?
Speaker 3: Yes, we have the letter. I, I was I was hopeful that everyone received a copy a letter. We did receive the letter and we sent our staff has reviewed it. And that becomes I shouldn't say not mislead anyone. That is not part of the legislation. That is sort of a side agreement. We have had side agreements like this before. We believe that the executive, a lot of people would suggest that this is a tool we can use to. I don't want to extract, but to gain the benefits that we do want.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments here. Councilmember Licata. Right.
Speaker 2: Thank you for jumping on this. And Mayor as well. At the last moment when we found out what Philadelphia. Had received from Comcast. I don't have that document in front of me. I thought it was a summary. I wasn't sure if it was actually a letter from Comcast, but I did notice and you read pretty much, I think from what I have seen that in particularly in the areas of greater assistance to seniors in particularly in low income areas for for youth, it seemed very aspirational and didn't seem as if there were any real measurements attached to it. I appreciate that being a door opener, but at the same time it doesn't seem that. I'm not sure how much leverage is provides us going beyond what we've already had per expectation. So if you could give me your impression what you think you and the mayor have received in those particular areas.
Speaker 3: Just so I understand the concern I have here, which is an attachment B, which is an attachment, a letter agreement to the document. I think that's the tool that was passed out. And I'm sure my my staff are following this conversation now and are preparing document to have you. So here's sort of the the short of it that we contact. I want to think since your staff contacted, a lot of parents really understand quite candidly, is this binding? I think that's the issue. Can we rest assured that these are the community benefits that are part that are part of this deal? And my interpretation of that opinion is this, that it is not nearly as ironclad as it could be in an ideal situation, that it is a letter agreement. And obviously, as policy leaders, we are relying on that agreement. But we may be hard pressed to prove that if there's a violation of the side agreement, we can revoke or penalize, if you will, the Comcast for a violation of the franchise agreement. That is not part. However, having said that, based on the experience of Do It and the executive on prior dealings and prior representations and our reliance as policy leaders, I think that they were comfortable enough that this side agreement, this letter agreement, sort of meets our needs and we can suspend the rules and hear from Michael Matt Miller directly, since they were sort of in an offhand comment on this issue, if you like, and maybe that might be a wise way to go.
Speaker 2: I would, because in particular, if we did allow Mr. Mettler to speak from what you said, it appears that even with the side agreement, that's not the same as a door opener for going back to and going back to these issues. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes. So should the councilperson like to move this?
Speaker 0: Unless there's objection? Mr. Matt Miller feel come to the center microphone, please, Harry. No objection.
Speaker 2: And members of the council. Councilmember Carter, to answer your question. This letter we have received with additional commitments from Comcast represents several benefits, as Councilmember Harrell was describing, in particular for the low income seniors discount program. But Comcast has committed us to do is include the city of Seattle in a pilot program nationwide where the company is expanding the benefits or excuse me, expanding the populations eligible for their Internet essentials discounted Internet program to include seniors who are over the age of 62 and eligible for one of 13 federal, state or local programs. And one of those programs is the City of Seattle Utility Discount Program. So we expect to work with Comcast to implement this between now and mid 2016. And at that time, just as an example, if you are a senior who is enrolled in the utility discount program here in Seattle, you would be eligible for an Internet connection for $9.99 per month. And the other area. I believe we're dealing with youth in particular and what is happening with that particular program. So this weekend, as we were working with Comcast to increase their commitment to us for digital equity in the city, we recognized that one of the areas the Council on the Mayor are very focused on right now is homelessness and the state of emergency that has been declared on homelessness. We worked with Comcast to say if the city could put some of our franchise fee revenue into a commitment and Comcast could also make a commitment, what could we do together? And we thought one of the more impactful areas that we could focus on is making sure that housing insecure, housing insecure youth and youth who are at risk could get easier access to devices to help improve their educational outcomes. So what we've committed to do with Comcast is to work out the details because we couldn't get through everything this weekend, but to develop a program where the city and Comcast together would supply laptops to housing insecure youth over the next five years of the franchise. I don't want to go back to sound, but I'm curious, in the first program you mentioned it was a nationwide program that they had with seniors. So we did one of a number of cities participating in it. But what I find unusual is that this came up literally in the last 48 hours. Did we not know that they had this national aid program? I mean, what did it take for us to get access to it? When we worked with Comcast over the past several months. We put together a series of benefits that we found to be very good compared to other cities like Seattle, who have recently negotiated franchises that include cities like Denver and Portland that we benchmarked ourselves against. There were some things like the senior pilot that we were aware of and we asked Comcast about, but were unable to obtain as part of our package. What happened on Friday is Councilmember Harrell and Mayor Murray saw the franchise package that Philadelphia received and we asked Comcast to go back and look at their commitment to our community and to recognize that digital equity is one of our core values and see how they could improve the package of benefits offered to us. And it was in going back and reviewing the benefits offered that Comcast agreed to make us part of the senior citizen low income pilot. They also increased the value of the digital equity grant from a one time $50000 to $500000 or 100,000 each year for a five year period. And to develop this commitment to put together a program to increase device access.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: And if there is any disagreement about the execution of the areas that we don't have measurement time, but we'll pursue with the assumption of goodwill, do we have any recourse? If there's a disagreement, this is a set of benefits that is separate from the franchise agreement itself. So we would not be able to use the mechanisms of enforcement in the franchise agreement in the same way we could if Comcast did not follow our Consumer Bill of Rights, like when a customer has an issue that they would call the cable office about. So so no, we wouldn't have that recourse. But I should point out, in the programs with which we've worked on Comcast in the past, we've found them to be a good partner. And Comcast has participated in our digital equity initiative over the last year to develop a sense of how we roll out more Internet service to different populations in the city. So we do expect them to continue working with us on that front.
Speaker 0: Other questions or comments? Councilmember Hill I'll.
Speaker 3: Just sort of close comments by saying I appreciate, as always, council member Lakatos concerned. If I were to be candid for the moment, we're prepared. We were prepared to pull the legislation. Comcast knew that we were I was prepared to move to late today to hold it if necessary. I think the executive and the Department of Information Technology are very comfortable and very proud of the benefits we were able to get. This is an ongoing working relationship, but I think that Comcast knew very clearly that certainly we were ready to hold the franchise agreement because these are ten year agreements. But we're comfortable with the representations and the commitments that are now made by Comcast. And with that, the committee recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Are the other benefits that are separate from the core franchise agreement. The other offers that Comcast made to us, are they part of the franchise agreement and therefore enforceable by the city?
Speaker 3: I could take a shot at Michael. You could come up and try to give a shout.
Speaker 2: The commitments Comcast is making to us that are directly related to cable television are included in the franchise legislation. So those would be benefits such as the PEG fees, franchise fees, commitments to the Seattle Channel and a low income discount for cable television service. The other benefits like the grant, the $500,000 digital equity grant, the device program, and the low income discount for seniors, as well as a program through which Comcast makes available 600 free cable modem connections to nonprofit organizations in our community are in that letter that are separate from the franchise.
Speaker 0: And how does the city memorialize those additional benefits?
Speaker 2: Those additional benefits in the letter are sent to do it, to memorialize that they will be provided to us. And in particular, the grant will need to be received by the Council through a supplemental budget, which is in process, I believe, for Q4 of this year.
Speaker 3: And what I would ask. In in asking the same question that Council President Burgess asked. I've made it clear at least, and there are theory of promissory estoppel that they have made promises, they made commitments. We are relying on these commitments in a letter of agreement, in my mind, that establish a contractual relationship, perhaps not as stringent as can be in the franchise agreement. But it is very clear that I look at this as consideration for us passing legislation today, and I must say that Comcast has stepped up to this. Two, what we need and what's happening in other cities as well. And but these are all great, great, great issues and great concerns.
Speaker 0: Comment. So whether it's Comcast or any other company, I just wonder, Councilmember Harrell, if that letter of agreement should be in our because we do not have that today. We have an offer letter from Comcast saying here's the things we'd like to do with you, but this would not be binding on them. I wonder if there's any any way that we could obtain that letter of agreement between the city and Comcast that would give us a stronger position going forward.
Speaker 3: In addition to the December 7th letter that you have.
Speaker 0: Yes, this is a letter that's from Comcast to the city.
Speaker 3: So you want to see it.
Speaker 0: But the city is not a party to this letter.
Speaker 3: Correct. We can do that. There's. Did you want to say something like.
Speaker 2: So we when we worked with the law department on this approach, our intent was to recognize these benefits in a letter from Comcast that would be separate from the franchise because the city is not putting up consideration per se. The letter was determined as the best way to memorialize this relationship. There is, as the council members have pointed out, some risk that without consideration, Comcast could change these benefits at some point. However, I should note that some of the benefits, like grants like the cable modem program we have been receiving since the last franchise, and we do not see we do not anticipate a change to these benefits.
Speaker 0: And again, it's. Is this what's the best business practice here? If we pass the franchise agreement and then next week, when you're trying to figure out this letter of agreement and Comcast says, well, that's not what we meant by that, then where are we? So that's my only question. Is there any time issue here in terms of whether this is executed today, whether we act on this legislation today or next Monday?
Speaker 2: From a timing perspective, we are getting close to the 30 day window in which the legislation we need to pass before it becomes effective and the current Comcast franchise would expire.
Speaker 0: That's right. I forgot about that. So that expires in January, right?
Speaker 2: It does. I can't say at the moment if wait until next Monday would put us over that deadline, but we would be very close.
Speaker 0: I would I would actually I.
Speaker 2: I first of all, I very much appreciate the effort Mike Lee put in. And because we are here on the mayor in recognizing what was being done with Philadelphia and trying to get a better deal. My concerns are very much reflective of the concerns of council. A member council president Burgess I personally I couldn't vote for this right now. If I my preference would be to hold it a week at least, then we'd have presumably time to get something in writing.
Speaker 0: Of course, our discussion of this is certainly a signal to Comcast and why our feelings about this. So I don't think and I'm not worried per se about this particular vendor. But Lauren, I just wonder if it's the right approach here.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Gonzalez Thank you, Counsel. President, I also want to express appreciation to to you, Michael, and to the mayor and to Councilmember Harrell for identifying this as a as an issue. I do think it's a significant issue. And that that I think those of us who sat in on committee last week would have benefited greatly from that particular information. In terms of the deal that was struck between Comcast and Philadelphia, I think that would have been helpful information to have during committee. Grateful that we have it. Now I share Councilmember Lakatos.
Speaker 4: Concerns with regard to.
Speaker 5: The enforceability of the particular December December 7th letter that was just handed out to us. And I'm also feeling discomfort in being able to have a clearer understanding of whether this is this is in the city's best interest.
Speaker 3: So what I'm hearing is a request for at least a one week hold on this.
Speaker 2: And I'm formal, if you. Why.
Speaker 3: Sure. I'll make it right now. I'll move to hold this for one week until I just moved. I'll say it's been second.
Speaker 0: It moved in second and that we hold item 11 until next Monday in the discussion. All in favor of the motion vote I. I oppose vote no. So this item will be held until next Monday. We'll move now to item 12. Please read this item into the record.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 12 Resolution 31637. Recognizing the obstacles faced by previously incarcerated individuals that often result in recidivism and the potential to reduce recidivism rates, criminal justice costs and incarcerations. Negative impacts on individuals, the community and the city of Seattle. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to enter into a renewed Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC; and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_Res 31637 | Speaker 5: Agenda item 12 Resolution 31637. Recognizing the obstacles faced by previously incarcerated individuals that often result in recidivism and the potential to reduce recidivism rates, criminal justice costs and incarcerations. Negative impacts on individuals, the community and the city of Seattle. Requesting the Mayor to establish a prisoner and Community Corrections Reentry Work Group composed of residents, city departments, the Seattle Municipal Court and the Legislative Department to coordinate and strengthen the city's efforts to assist prisoner community reentry. The committee recommends that the Council, the resolution, be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So this resolution calls on city departments to convene a prisoner and community corrections reentry work group to coordinate and strengthen the city's efforts to assist formerly incarcerated people who reenter our communities. And this workgroup will consist of residents and city departments and municipal court representative and our legislative department and great leaders like Murph . Thank you for being here, Mayor, for this piece of legislation. Basically, this working group will assess collection of fees and fines for criminal violations and infractions and how and how they impact successful reentry into our communities. The work we'll be doing will identify areas where the city's efforts could be strengthened by more effective coordination with other criminal justice agencies and develop a set of additional policies and ordinances and strategies to help us implement and facilitate prisoner reentry. This resolution is asking city departments to explore the creation of a Certificate of Restoration of opportunity, otherwise known as a crop. And many of you are aware of the work dealing with a crop in the state legislature. And so we will explore that. If the state legislature does not pass one in the upcoming legislative session, it is part of our agenda. We are hopeful, but we will be prepared of things in a short session. Do not go the way we want them to. This workgroup will report back to the Council by the end of February 2016 with an initial report, and the final report is due September 1st, 2016. Now, why are we doing this? What is this resolution all about? Well, we know in 2015, approximately 2.2 million people were incarcerated nationally, a 500% increase in the last 30 years. We speak at our committee and in our communities about the massive incarceration of many communities locally. In 2015, 16,675 adults were incarcerated in Washington State prisons, and a further average of 12,618 people per day were placed in local jails, with 2800 being jailed right here in King County. So in 2014, about 20% of the almost 8000 individuals released from Department of Corrections were released right here in our county. People of color are disproportionately represented among those released in King County. A study demonstrated while African-Americans were only 6% of the King County's population, 41% of people released from the Department of Corrections were African-American. And while Latinos were only 6% of King County's population, 18% of those people released from DC were Latinos. This work is needed. These policies are needed. This resolution heads us in the right direction as just this work we will be doing. And I personally believe that how cities and counties deal with the reentry of those who have been in custody will determine largely the fate and success of these cities. And I think this is important policy work that we must do. The committee recommends passage of this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting Resolution 31637 vote. I opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read item 13.
Speaker 5: Agenda item 13. Resolution 31632. Related to the city's emergency management program and many the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Base Plan, Emergency Operations Plan and All Hazards Mitigation Plan as required by Seattle Municipal Code Section 10.0 2.050 hour S.W. 38.5 2.077 and WAC 118-30060. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION recognizing the obstacles faced by previously incarcerated individuals that often result in recidivism, and the potential to reduce recidivism rates, criminal justice costs, and incarceration’s negative impacts on individuals, the community, and the City of Seattle; requesting the Mayor to establish a Prisoner and Community Corrections Re-entry Work Group composed of residents, City departments, the Seattle Municipal Court, and the Legislative Department to coordinate and strengthen the City’s efforts to assist prisoner community re-entry. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_Res 31632 | Speaker 5: Agenda item 13. Resolution 31632. Related to the city's emergency management program and many the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, Base Plan, Emergency Operations Plan and All Hazards Mitigation Plan as required by Seattle Municipal Code Section 10.0 2.050 hour S.W. 38.5 2.077 and WAC 118-30060. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Okay. We go from busy day today.
Speaker 3: For Comcast to civil rights to emergency management. Yeah. Okay. So the City of Seattle's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan simply is basically a suite of plans together that define our our strategies and our doctrine on how the city will prevent and prepare for and mitigate the impacts from disasters. This particular legislation is is necessary to meet our municipal code that requires that a comprehensive emergency management plan is kept current and that under the direction of the mayor promote proposed amendments. They are to be presented to the City Council for review and approval. So this local scene is required by state and has been negotiated and plan. And I'm very proud that we have one of the best experts, Barbara Graf, in running our emergency preparedness programs here at the city. There have been significant updates to the several plans, and we went over this in committee and there's a sort of a reorganization process that is consistent with state law. All of them are recommended by Ms.. Graff. And on December 2nd, the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee recommended passage of this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 3163 to vote I. I opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Please, please read items 14 and 15 and 16. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION related to the City’s Emergency Management Program; amending the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Base Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and All-Hazards Mitigation Plan as required by Seattle Municipal Code Section 10.02.050, RCW 38.52.077, and WAC 118-30-060. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CF 314328 | Speaker 5: Agenda items 14, 15 and 16 Clerk File 31432 8th August 2015 Report of the Police Intelligence Audit Pursuant to Ordinance 108333 Seattle Municipal Code 14.12 and Clerk filed 314329 Chief of Police Audit Report of Select Files obtained through the Police Department's membership in the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit and the Western States Information Network maintained exclusive for confidential information dated October 5th, 2015, in accordance with Ordinance 108333 and a Code 14.12 and Clerk file 314335. Response of the Police Chief to the August 2015 Report of the Intelligence Audit filed pursuant to Ordinance 108333 Seattle Missile Code 14.12. The committee recommends for council file the clerk files.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So these three files are basically the filing of a report that we do every year that pertains to how the city handles and treats information when gathered by our police departments and used or archived when looking at the protests, doing their job, etc.. The city of Seattle was the first city in the United States to actually prohibit by law the collection and maintenance of maintenance of information about the political, religious or social views or constitutionally protected activity of subjects who are neither involved in criminal activity or suspected of involvement. And how we treat this information is known as the Seattle Police Intelligence Ordinance. And through an audit process and an inspection process, we ensure the public that we're not using this information to the detriment of those that we collect it from. And thank you for testimony in this regard. In this particular in these particular files. The chief of police and the police intelligence auditor, Professor Browner, they physically examined the case files that are held by the criminal intelligence unit to ensure that they are in compliance with our ordinance. The this process certifies that the files reviewed showed no evidence of a pattern or practice or incident involving the collection of information in a manner prohibited by this ordinance. The committee did recommend the filing of these documents. In closing, I would also suggest that in when this police intelligence audience was first drafted back in the seventies, certainly the Internet and the kind of digital capabilities were not in place. And so part of the workplan next year in this particular audience will be to look at whether we need to change the skill set of the auditor to see how we're using photographs, how we're using any other form of digital or. Travel services, anything that we are keeping, whether we have the right ability, a good ability, a strong ability to, to, uh, to, to audit those functions of the police. And given that we actually given that theory, we actually made some adjustments in the budget to look at that particular position. So long winded way of saying the scope of that position will change next year, as will the procedure by which we verify sensitive information or political information or religious information about anyone is not used to the detriment of that person as the police do their job. The committee recommends passage of this filing of these three files.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Those in favor of placing clerk filed 314328 clerk filed 314329 and clerk file 314335 on file vote i. I oppose but no. Those three files are placed on file. The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read Item 17.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 118525 Relating to street and sidewalk use. Addressing low impact development requirements in the City of Seattle's Phase one Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. | Clerk File (CF) | August 2015 Report of the Police Intelligence Audit Pursuant to Ordinance 108333 (Seattle Municipal Code 14.12). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118525 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 17 Council Bill 118525 Relating to street and sidewalk use. Addressing low impact development requirements in the City of Seattle's Phase one Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's sufficient there.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Meg shot this one. And the next item, which is 118523, are companion items. Earlier this year, this council approved changes in the city's stormwater code. And the stormwater code requires city departments to review all development related codes and rules that would encourage low impact development and remove any barriers to implementing these strategies. This bill amends the Seattle Municipal Code to integrate the low impact development into land development code standards and rules. Are you still excited and awake and not implementing the proposed legislation would be a violation of the city's permit. Such violation is subject to $37,500 fine per violation per day penalty. So we definitely want to pass this. This first one pertains to Seattle Department of Transportation and the next item. 118523. It's exactly the same. And it pertains to Seattle Public Utilities. And we recommend passage for both.
Speaker 0: Right. Any questions on item 17? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Picture by Gordon Gonzalez Harrell.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Lucara.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen and President Burgess seven in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 18 through the first semicolon. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; addressing low impact development requirements in the City of Seattle’s Phase I Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology; correcting typographical errors and section references, clarifying regulations, and making minor amendments; and amending Sections 15.02.042, 15.02.044, 15.02.046, 15.04.010, 15.04.035, 15.06.050, 15.20.070, 15.22.060, 15.22.080, 15.22.100, 15.22.110, 15.32.160, 15.36.010, 15.44.030, 15.46.020, 15.70.030, 15.72.010, and 15.91.016 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CB 118575 | Speaker 5: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 118575. Relating to Seattle Public Utilities, excepting an easement situated adjacent to Seward Park granted to the city of Seattle for construction and abandoning in place of horizontal construction tiebacks, placing the easement under the jurisdiction of Seattle public utilities and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Bancroft.
Speaker 4: Thank you. You will recall last year we all worked assiduously to get a combined sewer storage tank sited, and the choice was at Seward Park. After looking at a number of different spaces, what's required is a tieback easement at the base of a slope where we've got a private property up on top. And the property owner has granted Seattle Public Utilities a tie back easement for 26,472. It is underground, but it will allow the project to proceed and we recommend approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Back shot.
Speaker 4: By.
Speaker 1: Gordon Gonzalez i Harrell.
Speaker 0: Licata, I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen and President Burgess seven in favor and opposed the.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 20. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; accepting an easement situated adjacent to Seward Park granted to The City of Seattle for construction and abandoning-in-place of horizontal construction tiebacks; placing the easement under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12072015_CF 313894 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item 22 Clerk File 313894. The petition of City Investors for LLC for the vacation of a subterranean portion of the alley and block 89. Denise fifth addition to North Seattle, bounded by Westlake Avenue, North Ninth Avenue, North Denny Way and John Street. The committee recommends the full council grant the petition as condition.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. The petitioner is seeking a subterranean elevator case as a part of a commercial residential project with two towers on an entire block in the South Lake Union neighborhood. The block is bordered on the South, by Denny way, by John Street on the North Lake on the East Ninth Avenue on the West and unimproved alley runs north and south, and it bisects the entire block. Generally, a full vacation is necessary only when a building is proposed atop the right of way, and when the petitioner seeks to gain an extra land area in order to increase the building floor area. But the vacation is not sought for those reasons, and instead is requested to allow the construction of a garage and loading access area and a single location from John Street under the block rather than using the alley. Given the traffic conditions on Denny Way, Daly is not usable for through traffic. The alley would instead continue to function as a public pedestrian access area, open space, and would continue to contribute to the network of open spaces in the neighborhood. For that reason, under the street location policies, public ownership of the right away is a preferred method. The public benefits that are being proposed includes the alleyway right away will be improved for pedestrians and bicyclists and will not be open to motor vehicles, landscaping and public improvements to the triangular portion right of way at the corner of Ninth Avenue and Denny Way will be constructed at the petitioners expense. Green Street improvements will be provided on John Street and a voluntary step back and streetscape improvements has been offered and will be constructed on Denny Way. Street streetscape improvements on Ninth Avenue, North and West Lake Avenue North will also be constructed at the petitioners expense. One of the concerns that came up is that because the Surface Alley right of way will still be in public ownership, but the abutting properties will be designed in such a way that it makes both the public and the privately owned areas appear to be one. It will make it difficult for the average person to know what is public right away and what is private property. So what the Transportation Committee said and requested at the committee meeting was to include a condition, and you'll see that condition now set out in the vacation petition itself or the is the planned use and development agreement that it is Section seven that the applicant has to incorporate clear and obvious design cues to delineate, delineate between the public property and their private property. The condition requires that the applicant work with the Design Commission and the Commission for People with Disabilities and the Department of Transportation to include design elements in wayfinding signage to more clearly defined public space. At the committee meeting, Councilmember O'Brien abstained from voting on this matter. I don't know if the language has included in the property use and development agreement would satisfy his concerns. Certainly it is a strong statement of. Ahmed out of the petitioner that they do clearly delineate between the public property and the private property, and that they work with the design commission, the Commission for People with Disabilities, and has started to ensure that that does happen. The rest of the committee members who attended did support approval with that condition being added. Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of granting the petition petition as conditioned vote I by those opposed vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as conditioned and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Immediately following this council meeting, the council's central Waterfront Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Committee will meet and that meeting will begin at 325. Are there any other items to come before? Oh, that's right. Item number one. Yes. We'll return now to item number one on the agenda. If the clerk could read that in. And thank you for the reminder.
Speaker 5: Agenda item one Council Bill 118578 relating to the Construction and Land Use Fund, adding a new section to 2.202.070 to the Seattle Municipal Code introduced November 30th, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 2: Second time is the term and more prep for this time. Okay, so this bill amends this year municipal code to allow a transfer of funds from the construction and land use if authorized by ordinance. Among other things, the Construction Land Use Fund receives revenue from judgments for construction of land use code violations. Generally, judgment revenue is used for cost recovery. This bill, however, would enable transfer of revenue from judgments related to the Cicely properties for other uses.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 118578.
Speaker 1: Back shot by Gordon Gonzalez, Carol Licata, Rasmussen and President Burgess seven in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Now, is there any other business to come before the council? We will adjourn and then reconvene in 5 minutes as the Select Committee on the Central Waterfront. Thank you. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of City Investors IV, LLC for the vacation of a subterranean portion of the alley in Block 89, D.T. Denny's 5th Addition to North Seattle, bounded by Westlake Avenue North, 9th Avenue North, Denny Way and John Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11162015_CB 118488 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read item number one.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 118488 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation into into a lease agreement with was l running inc to occupy and use a portion of building 11 at Warren G. Magnuson Park for general office purposes. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 2: I move to amend council bill 118488 attachment one by substituting version seven for version 6/2.
Speaker 0: Any questions or comments on the motion to substitute. All in favor. Vote. I oppose. Vote no. The motion carries and we now have version seven in front of us.
Speaker 2: As I stated at briefing the Lees pass through the Parks Committee a couple of months ago, and since then some small changes have been made to the lease. The Y cell building occupancy footprint in the hallway was reduced by 175 feet. This allows a part of the hallway that originally would have been more cells to become a common area so that other tenants would have a second means of leaving the building. One more room was added to the rear space, resulting in a net increase of 186 square feet to their premises. The committee did unanimously agree to this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien. Okamoto. Rasmussen. So want back shot? I got him. I look. Carter. All right. And President Burgess eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. That's the last item on our agenda. Is there anything else to come before the council?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Bagshaw I have one quick one. I request to be excused on Monday, December 14th.
Speaker 0: Second on favor of excusing Councilmember Bagshaw on Monday, December 14. Vote I oppose Vote No. The excuses granted. So the council will reconvene in 15 minutes at 230. As the board of directors for the Park District. And we will immediately follow that meeting with a continuation of the Select Committee on the Budget. Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a lease agreement with Oiselle Running Inc. to occupy and use a portion of Building 11 at Warren G. Magnuson Park for general office purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11092015_Res 31612 | Speaker 2: Agenda item two Resolution 31612. Stating the Council's intent to make changes to zoning and land use regulations to implement a mandatory inclusionary affordable housing program for residential development and an affordable housing impact mitigation program for commercial development recommended by the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda Advisory Committee. And the Mayor clarifying the scope of changes to be considered, establishing minimum outreach, planning and implementation requirements that must be met prior to council consideration and requesting regular reporting. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I don't have a lot to add. This is the resolution that identifies what we're going to do on the residential side. The reality is that the it's going to take a number of months longer for us to get the actual bill that would implement the mandatory housing affordability residential program or the inclusionary housing program that we've talked about in place. But it's important that we pass this resolution today of this council to say it is our intent to move forward with that. It also outlines the the series of steps we're taking with the zoning changes to make these both the bill we passed today and the one will pass early next year, hopefully. And of course, it's always great to start off with a task force or a task list that includes something we just did, which was pass the ordinance. We just did so we did the commercial side. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31612 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come? Sir. Any other business to come before the council? With that, we're adjourned. Excuse me. Councilmember Harrell moved to be excused from November 16th meeting. It's moved in second. And that council member Harold be excused. That's next Monday. All in favor. Vote I. I opposed. You are excused. Any other business? We are adjourned. Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION stating the Council’s intent to make changes to zoning and land use regulations to implement a mandatory inclusionary affordable housing program for residential development and an affordable housing impact mitigation program for commercial development recommended by the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda Advisory Committee and the Mayor; clarifying the scope of changes to be considered; establishing minimum outreach, planning, and implementation requirements that must be met prior to Council consideration; and requesting regular reporting. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10262015_Res 31626 | Speaker 1: Agenda item two Resolution 31626. Setting the public hearing on the petition of ACORN Development LLC for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK, 21 heirs of Sarah Abel's second edition to the city of Seattle in the Denny Triangle neighborhood of Seattle, according to Chapter three 5.17, Revised Code of Washington. Seattle in this will code 15.62 and clerks file 314278. Introduced October 26, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you. This is a routine item that sets the date for the public hearing for a vacation of the alley that is located between Blanchard and Bell and seventh and eighth Avenues. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 24th, 2015, starting at 9:30 a.m. at the meeting of the City Council Transportation Committee. And at that time, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment upon the proposed vacation. Thank you. Any comments? I move adoption of resolution 3162 6 seconds second. Thank you. All in favor indicate by voting I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Is there any other business to come before the council? Thank you. We're adjourned. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of Acorn Development LLC for the vacation of the alley in Block 21, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle in the Denny Triangle neighborhood of Seattle, according to Chapter 35.79 Revised Code of Washington, Seattle Municipal Code 15.62, and Clerk’s File 314278. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10192015_Res 31623 | Speaker 3: Agenda item one, resolution 31623. Opposing Washington initiative measure 1366 and urging Seattle voters to vote no on Initiative 1366 on the November 3rd, 2015 General Election Ballot Introduced October 12th, 2015.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I move to adopt resolution 31623. It's moved in second. And if the resolution be adopted, we will now hear comments from council members in support of this resolution. Are there any comments? This resolution is on the November 3rd general election ballot. It is somewhat complicated, but it is a resolution that would mandate that the state legislature take action on tax matters or impose a two thirds majority vote requirement. This, if adopted, this initiative could cost the taxpayers of Washington State up to $8 billion over the next six years, primarily for funding of education and other essential services. It would block reform of our tax system, which is one of the most regressive in the United States. The initiative is opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in the state of Washington. And by adopting this resolution, we urge the voters of Seattle to oppose Initiative 1366. Are there any other comments from council members? Council members who want.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Brian Burgess. Just to make it clear, a vote of yes on this resolution is would be advocating for no on the statewide initiative. I strongly support this resolution. The initiative would set unnecessary restrictions on new taxes. These restrictions are particularly problematic because of the existing tax structure in the state, which is the most progressive in the nation, and particularly the fact that the sales tax, which is at the moment the backbone of tax revenues in the state. Taxes, poor and working class people far more than rich people and corporations. In this initiative, there are even exemptions to the sales tax specially built in for corporations. For example, there is an exemption for chemical fertilizer and an exemption for jet fuel. I mean, what regular person is buying massive amounts of jet fuel? Boeing buys jet fuel. I doubt if any of us has ever bought jet fuel. I mean, if you own an aircraft, maybe you do. So this initiative is really designed to stop us from beginning to shift the tax burden off the backs of regular people and onto the super rich and big business. And I fully support a council resolution objecting to that and urging voters to reject the initiative. It also should be added, though, that our state legislature, regardless of which major political party establishment has been in control of it, has totally failed to pass progressive taxation measures even without this outrageous restriction going forward. So we should oppose this restriction because we should oppose further hurdles being put in the way of taxing the wealthy. But we should not let current lawmakers off the hook for their failure to act so far. And the best way to do it is to hold city officials accountable so that we can push for every possible progressive revenue option at the city level to push on the state. And let's all oppose this Dim Omen initiative.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We'll now hear comments from council members in opposition to the resolution. Are there any comments? We will take comments from the public. Now I wish to speak in opposition or support of the resolution. How much time? We'll take comments for 6 minutes. Speakers will alternate between opponents and proponents of the resolution until the 6 minutes have expired. We'll begin with someone in favor of the resolution. Paula Revere.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thanks again for a chance to speak. These initiatives are look like random moneymaking schemes. They really aren't. This is a way of really strangling the legislature. And we've already been strangled with that income tax, which I could show someone listen long enough that the people in the state of Washington want an income tax. There are certain millionaires that don't. And there are other states that support that same nonsense. So we have to live on very little money in this state, and it's constantly being squeezed every legislative session. And now we'll be losing our schools eventually. If you look at Chicago and Detroit and have charter schools and basically it's it's a way of starving the life out of representative government. Which takes us back to the Treaty of Verona, November 22nd, 1822. They celebrated on the day that President Kennedy was killed because he fought the most representative government when he impeached the Federal Reserve and issued silver certificates and silver dollars. So Tim, I'm in is definitely an enemy in that respect. The problem is that people don't get the whole story and they may vote for it just because it doesn't look like a big deal. And that's a shame. With my 37 seconds left, I wanted to share with you that the person that runs the TPP, Mr. from is the same person who started the Democratic Leadership Council out of Arkansas and brought in Mr. Clinton, who was not a Democrat and brought him into running for election. And he's the one that signed Douma and he's also the one that did the Crime Act, and he's also the one that killed the Commerce Protection Act, and he's also the one that killed the Steagall Act. So keep your eyes open and don't let your memory forget what's really been happening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. In order to get more speakers and we're going to shift to one minute of comment in opposition to the resolution. Paul W lock.
Speaker 6: Paul W Lock. We should do anything we can to restrict giving you more money to spend. Absolutely. We're not getting anything of value. Creating a bureaucracy. That's nothing yourself. Fancy salaries, staffs, you name it. It could go through. It could be a two thirds vote. To raise taxes. We can't afford it. But the majority of the population in this city living off the rest of us. It just running out of people to pay the bills. In California, the richest man moved to Australia. Help them. Billions of dollars in income came into them. People want money. There's been things that make things better. You're still applying.
Speaker 1: Thank you. In favor of the resolution. Good space guy.
Speaker 0: Good dog ish, I say. Good space guy. And this initiative from Tim Iman. Tim Iman is one of good space guys heroes. So I have a lot of role models. Tim Iman is one of them. Third State Initiative Measure 1366 has the potential of lowering the sales tax from six and a half percent to five and a half percent. This would be very good if you support the exchange economy, the capitalistic, free market exchange economy that makes the customer the king. So when you tax something, you decrease it. So by having a high sales tax, we decrease the exchange economy. People decide, well, I am not going to be involved in exchange economy. I'm going to do things myself or I'm going to abstain. But if we put low taxes on the exchange economy.
Speaker 1: New York Times. You actually signed up on the wrong sheet. So is there anyone who wants to speak in favor of the council's resolution? Yes. Are you Sarah? Great.
Speaker 2: Sheet as well. Good afternoon, council members. Thank you for your resolution. Encouraging a no on initiative 1366. My name is Sarah Kessler with Fuze, Washington, representing the broad bipartisan Coalition of Leaders Opposing Initiative. 1366. 1366 is the latest attempt by Tim Simon and his corporate backers to force state lawmakers into passing a constitutional amendment that would lock into place a two thirds majority to raise revenue or close unnecessary tax loopholes. If both the Washington State House and Senate do not comply with Iman's demanded constitutional amendment 1366 could cut about $8 billion from our state's education, emergency services, parks and everything else. That makes our state a great place to live. This proposal is a lose lose for Washington. Either we cut billions of dollars from education or we permanently lock into place our state's upside down, regressive tax system. And closing our state's constitution is not a toy to play with. 1366 is so flawed it will likely be found unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker will be lacrosse. A green.
Speaker 2: I'm glad I didn't prepare a two minute speech, but I don't have anyone either. I come here to ask your consideration. I don't appreciate somebody telling me how to vote. And when you gang up as a bloc and wanting us to vote one way or the other, you are saying that you have better judgment than the rest of us. You don't tell a grown adult what to do. You may ask are you may suggest. But you can't tell them what to do. I don't appreciate you doing this. And also, I don't appreciate you coming up here and saying at Black Lives Matters when you're here supporting killing unborn children. There's something wrong here. And I would appreciate you considering that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We'll now vote on resolution 31623, which opposes state initiative 1366. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item number two. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION opposing Washington Initiative Measure 1366 and urging Seattle voters to vote “no” on Initiative 1366 on the November 3, 2015 general election ballot. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10192015_CB 118366 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118366 related to special permits for the limited movement of vehicles carrying sealed ocean going containers in excess of the legal weight limits. Adopting a new Chapter 11.61 to the Seattle Municipal Code, establishing such a special permit system authorizing the Department of Transportation to execute agreements with the Port of Seattle to accept funds creating a commercial vehicle enforcement officer position to monitor, enforce the heavy haul network and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends a divided report with a recommendation to that the bill pass, as amended by councilmembers Rasmussen, Burgess, Gordon Okamoto and a recommendation to not pass by council members O'Brien and so on.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The majority opinion goes first with divided reports. So, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This bill establishes the heavy haul network in the SODO area. The network will be a series of 26 streets that freight will use to haul sealed containers from ships at the port to nearby shipping facilities in the Sodo and West Thomas area. Currently, our streets have an £80,000 weight limit. Trucking companies, shippers or independent drivers wishing to transport containers over that £80,000 weight limit either have to carry the containers on trucks that are outfitted with special expensive chassis designed to distribute the weight over the additional axles or break the law and exceed the weight limit with using standard chassis . As we've already heard from one of the drivers about the the high costs of any fine that may be related if you're caught breaking the law and the load limit. With this legislation and the agreement that's attached to it. Trucks with permits will be able to carry freight weighing up to £98,000 on standard houses on roads that are part of the network. The drivers will pay a $200 annual permit that allows them to move heavy hauls within the network permit. Revenues will help pay for an additional commercial vehicle enforcement officer to ensure the proper use of the corridor. Drivers will be required to undergo twice annual commercial vehicle safety inspections, and as I said earlier, only sealed oceangoing containers will be allowed. General traffic will be allowed still on those roads. In the heavy haul network, the Department of Transportation and Port Engineers estimate that the heavy haul roads would deteriorate faster by 10% faster than if they were carrying weight within the £80,000 limit. The exact level that would be required for a contribution from the port to the city to help pay for these additional costs will depend upon future studies to determine the impact of the heavy hauls. But it's anticipated that the costs for additional maintenance will be between ten and $20 million over the next 20 years. All of this is provided for in the Council Bill itself and the memorandum of understanding that is attached to the Council Bill. So overall, with the memorandum of agreement and the legislation, the result is that it eliminates truck driver citations from our state patrol and increases vehicle safety by requiring twice yearly vehicle inspections. It adds a new commercial vehicle enforcement officer to enhance safety compliance. The Port of Seattle and our maritime industry, which are major employers in the region and an important part of our economy, will remain competitive. As you know, the port is in a fiercely competitive market for cargo. And if we don't allow the heavier loads on these streets, they'll go to other ports, including nearby Tacoma, Los Angeles and Long Beach, which already have heavy haul corridors. There was some concern. And we do know that there is a divided report on this about issues relating to the port. And one of the ones that came up. Was the issue of providing adequate bathrooms for the drivers at the port 18 terminals, port 18 terminals. This issue has been an ongoing dispute some time between the drivers and the port. And I'm happy to announce that the city, the port and representatives of the drivers have worked out an agreement with regard to the condition of the bathrooms, in the bathrooms that will be provided. And that in agreement includes the commitment by the port to refurbish two existing restrooms. The port will have the three new portable restrooms for drivers and also additional parking stalls so that the drivers can access other restrooms safely. So overall, with the agreement between the port and the drivers, as well as this legislation and the memorandum of agreement, we have a win win for the port, for US competitiveness and the many jobs that depend upon the port for Seattle, which depends in part upon the port success for the survival of our economy, and also the drivers who we've heard from at times over the course of the development of this legislation. So I would like to thank the port for their partnership and for their understanding and working on the issue related to the restrooms and also with regard to our need for better maintenance of our streets and to members of staff, including Brian Seward of the Office of Economic Development and Rockey of the Office of Economic Development. Scott Kirby of the Department of Transportation. Peter Lindsay of our central staff and Anthony Auriemma of my staff.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The Minority Report. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I am the author of The Minority Report. And I'm in the in your position of having getting to say that the work that's been done in the last few weeks has allowed me to feel much more comfortable with this legislation and so I'll be supporting it at the committee raised a lot of it raised a lot of concerns about a number of issues, specifically around low wage workers and drivers and talked a lot about wanting to see a commitment to making sure that the bathroom facilities at terminal 18 we're going to be acceptable. I want to thank Councilmember Rasmussen and Council President Burgess for holding this legislation for a couple of weeks to allow for some really good work to have happen. I want to thank the Port of Seattle and folks from the executive side and Office Economic Development for working very hard in the last couple of weeks to reach an agreement on how we can move forward on providing those bathrooms at Terminal 18. The commitment is what I've been hearing from the truck drivers that they want to see, and I'm really thrilled that we're at a place where we are today. Now, it's a commitment. The bathrooms aren't in place. But I've heard from port commissioners Albo and Gregoire today that they take this commitment seriously and we're going to work in a timely, expedited fashion to make sure that the work follows through so the drivers will actually have the facilities they've been hoping for for a long time. So with that, I want to I want to thank the port especially for the specifics on this. And I look forward to opportunities to continue to work together as a region to make sure we have a robust economy and to make sure, especially those lowest wage workers are being treated fairly. And I think what was demonstrated in the last couple of weeks was a real a real commitment towards that values. And I really appreciate that. So I will be voting.
Speaker 1: Yes on this. Thank you. Councilmember So on.
Speaker 5: Thank you. President Burgess. I concur with the points Councilmember Brian made, except just one correction. The Minority Report was coauthored by on Tim O'Brien and me. And when this special permit for a heavy haul network came up for a vote in committee, we voted no because the Teamsters Union that has been organizing and fighting alongside the port truckers pointed out that there were significant and there are still significant worker rights issues that need to be addressed. The lack of access to bathrooms is one of them and a really urgent one. I want everybody in the public to know that do know how impactful taking your vote seriously. Elected officials taking their vote seriously can be because after this Minority Report was issued, there was some movement from the port commissioners who wanted this memorandum memorandum of understanding and began to show willingness for the first time, in my experience, to do something about the long needed bathrooms. And it's an example of how, contrary to what the corporate media says, you know, when you vote no, you're grandstanding. In reality, if elected officials take their yes or no vote on these issues seriously, then rather than rubber stamping the status quo, they can actually get some movement on these issues. So. This change will also now vote yes on the contract. Although the caution is the bathrooms have been promised, they haven't been delivered yet and we will need to remain vigilant that they follow through on that and also follow through on other remaining worker rights issues.
Speaker 1: Council Member Gordon.
Speaker 2: I just want to say that I'm so very.
Speaker 5: Very pleased that we've come together with the.
Speaker 2: Port and our work partnering with them to make our port more competitive. And it is great to see the city and the port working together towards that aim and also to do the humanitarian thing with the workers.
Speaker 5: And yes, I will be voting for this.
Speaker 1: Please call a role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Bagshot Garden. Harrow.
Speaker 3: Licata.
Speaker 2: I O'Brien. II Okamoto.
Speaker 3: Rasmussen.
Speaker 2: Seward.
Speaker 3: I am President Burgess High nine. In favor and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read item three. | Ordinance (Ord) | An ORDINANCE related to special permits for the limited movement of vehicles carrying sealed ocean-going containers in excess of the legal weight limits; adopting a new chapter 11.61 to the Seattle Municipal Code establishing such a special permit system; authorizing the Department of Transportation to execute agreements with the Port of Seattle to accept funds; creating a Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officer position to monitor and enforce the heavy haul network and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10192015_Res 31624 | Speaker 3: Agenda item three. Resolution 31624. Affirming the City of Seattle, support of Planned Parenthood and recognizing its vital role in providing health care. Introduced October 19th, 2015.
Speaker 1: I move to adopt Council Resolution 31624 over the last excuse me, over the last several months, we've seen a lot of national news coverage and some here locally about Planned Parenthood. And this resolution with the mayor concurring expresses our gratitude and affirms the quality medical services that Planned Parenthood provides in the city of Seattle and throughout the state of Washington. Planned Parenthood offers cancer screenings, birth control for men and women in emergency contraception and everything else in between. They serve an average of 100,000 women and men in the state of Washington each year in providing medical services. Planned Parenthood is a trusted health care provider for one in five women in Seattle and across the United States. They provide crucial health care services to our citizens and residents. The city of Seattle, through this resolution, expresses its gratitude to Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, which is our local affiliate for the health care that they provide to millions of people annually, including teenagers, people with limited incomes and other vulnerable populations. The city of Seattle, through this resolution, affirms its support for Planned Parenthood health centers in Seattle and elsewhere in carrying out their mission to safeguard and provide access to a fundamental human right. Basic medical care. Are there any other questions or comments.
Speaker 2: Down that way?
Speaker 1: Councilmember God.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm so very, very pleased.
Speaker 5: To see this resolution coming before us today. It's just really beyond reprehensible that the congressional.
Speaker 2: Republicans would use Planned Parenthood in Citizens Hill as if it were a mere.
Speaker 5: Bargaining chip. I must tell you that I go back quite a ways.
Speaker 2: I can remember the bad old days. I once accompanied a friend undergoing an abortion during the days when there were no safe legal options. We cannot go back. I will support women and families and stand with parents. Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood for voting.
Speaker 5: For this resolution today. Planned Parenthood is a vital, accessible medical.
Speaker 2: Care provider.
Speaker 5: For communities in Seattle.
Speaker 2: And throughout Puget Sound. And I am so grateful to be able to vote on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. So on.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Burgess. I concur with your comments. And I have to say, as a woman and as an elected official, I'm just absolutely fed up of the attack after attack on women's reproductive rights and women's health care with lies, violence and intimidation, the right wing is attempting to roll back the rights the women's movement have won in the 1970s. And these attacks have been going on for decades. But they have intensified and accelerated in the recent years. And everyone remembers just last month there was arson at the Planned Parenthood Health Care Center in Pullman. Large sections of the country have no abortion access at all. Women from Alaska come to Seattle because this is the closest place they can get their health care needs met. And how many women would be able to afford to fly to Seattle from Alaska to visit the doctor? We have to rebuild the women's movement, like the movement that won the abortion rights in the first place. We have to commend the courageous stand of the hashtag Shout Your Abortion Movement, which is reminiscent of the stand taken by women in the seventies who came out of the closet about their abortion rights. Special kudos to activists like Lindy West, who have been outspoken in their opposition to the attacks on women's rights. But we have to do more than just defend our existing rights. We, women and men and people of all genders have to build a movement for true single payer universal healthcare to guarantee all the health care needs of women and the trans community. We need to be able to fight for 12 weeks paid parental leave for all workers and ending the gender pay gap once and for all. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I just want to add what a critical piece of our community Planned Parenthood is. They provide amazing resources and our society would be much worse off without them. It's appalling to see the attacks on them. And I appreciate folks bringing this resolution forward.
Speaker 1: I'll support it. Thank you. All in favor of adopting Resolution 31624 vote. I opposed vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Member Larkana.
Speaker 0: Yes. I am circulating a letter that will be addressed to the Universal Protection Service. The this is the organization that recently updated the contract for providing security for the City Hall. The employees whom many of us know and enjoy their services and we consider them our friends. They are currently represented by SEIU Local Union six, and this letter simply expresses our support for these workers and encouraged the new owner to maintain their representation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So we'll circulate that letter on the dais and to our security partners. Thank you. You do an excellent job, very professional, and we do consider you as our friends. Thank you. Any other business to come before the council? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I asked to be excused next Monday, October 26th.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: It's moved in. Second, and the Councilmember O'Brien be excused next Monday. Any questions or comments? All in favor. Vote. I oppose. Vote no. You're excused. Councilmember Alarcon.
Speaker 0: Yes, I would also like to be excused. October 26.
Speaker 1: Sara, second. Second. Councilmember Licata wants to be excused also. We're dwindling quickly here. All in favor. Vote. I oppose. Vote no. You are excused. Anyone else? Thank you. That's the end of our meeting. So we'll. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming the City of Seattle’s support of Planned Parenthood and recognizing its vital role in providing health care. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_Res 31621 | Speaker 1: Item one agenda item one resolution 31621. Relating to the acknowledgment of the various harms and ongoing historical and intergenerational traumas impacting American Indian First Nations and Alaska Natives for the forcible removal of Indian children and subsequent abuse and neglect resulting from the United States American Indian boarding school policy during the 19th and 20th centuries, supporting American Indian and Alaska Native Communities efforts and calling on the United States Congress to commission a study and report on the United States responsibility and role in adopting and implementing an American Indian boarding school policy and committing to work with the local American Indian and Alaska Natives in efforts of reconciliation, in addressing the impacts of historical trauma, language and cultural loss and alleged genocide. Introduced October 5th, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member So on.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian Burgess. I wanted to begin by thanking everybody in the Seattle Indigenous community for their activism, starting with the Indigenous Peoples Day resolution that we were able to pass unanimously last year. I wanted to call out my family specifically for his unflagging enthusiasm, for his community and for all of us who are fighting for social justice. I also wanted to especially thank Chris Jones as well for presiding over the celebration that we had at Burton Islanders. This resolution acknowledges the traumas and horrors of the U.S.. American Indian boarding school policy. For those who do not know throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century, which was not that long ago, and you heard testimonies of people who here who have had relatives who went through this. The federal government had a policy that continued the genocide of the indigenous peoples of this continent. Over a hundred thousand Native American children were taken from their homes and families, often forcefully. As was said before, these children were not allowed to speak their own languages or practice their own religions. They were subjected to abuses including child labor and sexual abuse. Genocide. As the Seattle Human Rights Commission confirms, is not only the mass killing of a people, it is also the erasing of their culture, their language, their religion. And that is precisely what the US American Indian boarding school policy was designed to do. It was not accidental. This resolution demands that U.S. Congress acknowledge and take steps to correct the damage done by this policy. This resolution was initially drafted, as I said, by Madam Lee and has been supported by a long list of community organization , the Seattle Human Rights Commission. Also Idle No More. Their speakers were here El Centro de la Raza and the Northwest to Spirit Society. All these activists are part of a growing movement for justice in Seattle against racism, against violence, and for housing and income justice. And I must mention the Black Lives Matter movement organizations are also in solidarity with this resolution. And just like the Indigenous Peoples Day resolution we passed last year, this resolution is so powerful because it is groundbreaking. The federal government has never even acknowledged this history, never mind taking steps to correct the harm done or offer any sort of justice or restitution. And this resolution demands that the US Congress do that. The timing of the resolution is also not an accident. We are voting on this today. On Indigenous Peoples Day 2015, because Indigenous People's Day is about celebrating Indigenous peoples, but also about using the symbolic importance of this day to continue the struggle against ongoing marginalization and oppression of these communities and indeed all communities. Please support this resolution. And to everyone in the community, let's start preparing for the next steps of our struggle.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Rasmussen Well, I strongly support this resolution. I think that what is more powerful than the resolution, though, is hearing from the people themselves who suffered in the boarding school experience. And several years ago, I attended an elementary school classroom of fifth graders, and a Native American elder came and spoke to them about his experience of being taken away from his family at about the same age as those young students at the elementary school I attended were, and they were shocked to hear that something like that had happened to him, and he was barely able to speak about his experience 60, 60, 70 years ago. He actually broke down into tears talking about that experience that still traumatizes him today to talk about that. And I think that it is important, as this resolution says, that our public schools do teach that history because the people who have experienced that history are here today. And nothing is more powerful than hearing from the people who have suffered that experience and know that experience. And they can convey that to the students of today more powerfully than any of us can and far more powerfully than this resolution. So I'm hoping that the school district listens to us and they invite people in to teach the young people of the experiences of this history and to. Thank you, President Burgess. It's I'm speechless that this has come before us. And it's long overdue. It's something that should have been said long ago when I was a child. My family would go out to near Bay and we would fish. And I found myself invited into Native families to play and eat. And it wasn't until later in my adult life that I began to understand the injustices and the harm caused by the country. I live in the country that I'm a citizen to the native peoples, just unspeakable harm that to this day continues on. My family suffered some hardships during World War Two, were imprisoned in prison camps, and the trauma that it caused my family was widespread. It wasn't until my father was an adult that I heard the stories of being imprisoned and the emotional harm that that caused. I support this resolution. It's a beautiful thing to hear your young speak, your native language that despite the injustices caused by our country to you, that you're recapturing the heart of who you are. So with that, I support this resolution and will continue to support the causes of sovereign nations in our country. Thank you.
Speaker 0: I moved to adopt resolution 31621. It's moved in second and the resolution be adopted. Are there any further comments? Councilmember So on.
Speaker 2: Just wanted to say in closing that we've come a long way since Minneapolis and Seattle declared Indigenous Peoples Day last year. Many other cities are on the way and our hope is and we will keep fighting for this, that by next year the federal government will have abolished Columbus Day nationally. And did I hear correctly that the governor of Alaska declared today as indigenous peoples day? That's that's a huge step forward. We should make sure that happens at Washington State as well. And just very quickly, I also wanted to add that we should take all the energy that has been generated from what we've been able to achieve last year and this year to make sure that we win victories on affordable housing, racial equity in schools, and especially that we demand our elected officials support the educators who are pushing for the pushing to include the real history of America in the text books. I think that is all that is really necessary. And and last but not least, we've all also been together in fighting against Cherry Point Coal Terminal. And I really congratulate the Idle No More movement on that. And we've been in the canoes in front of the polar pioneer to fight against Shell's attempts to drill in the Arctic . So the fight goes on. Can actually.
Speaker 0: Those in favor of adopting Resolution 31621 vote I II oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will support. Thank you very much for coming down and come back any time you want. We'd love to have you. Please read items two through five. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the acknowledgment of the various harms and ongoing historical and inter-generational traumas impacting American Indian, First Nations, and Alaskan Natives for the forcible removal of Indian children and subsequent abuse and neglect resulting from the United States’ American Indian Boarding School Policy during the 19th & 20th Centuries; supporting American Indian and Alaskan Native communities’ efforts in calling on the United States Congress to commission a study and report on the United States’ responsibility and role in adopting and implementing an American Indian Boarding School Policy; and committing to work with the local American Indian and Alaskan Natives in efforts of reconciliation in addressing the impacts of historical trauma, language and cultural loss, and alleged genocide. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_CB 118518 | Speaker 1: The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118518. Relating to land use and zoning amending sections 25.05.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code to repeal the categorical exemption for SIPA review of proposed infill development. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Great. So this is the first of four ordinances that we're going to be voting on today. They all relate to the comprehensive plan, although this one a little peripherally. The amendment states sorry, is the bill title states. This would repeal the categorical exemption for SIPA that we passed a few years ago. Just as a reminder for folks that exemption allowed for projects within urban villages that hadn't met their growth targets, where area wide CPA analysis had already been done. Those projects could be exempt from CPA because later on in one of the bills they were adopting for the comprehensive plan in the amendments, the growth estimates that we will replace the growth targets with are not at the urban village level. There is no longer a possibility for this to happen. So we're repealing this allowance. It's possible that next year DPD may come back with a new bill, but for now this would be repealed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: So I want back shot I got in.
Speaker 8: High.
Speaker 1: Hero I Muqata II. O'BRIEN Hi, Okamoto. All right. RASMUSSEN Right. And President Burgess, 90 favorite nine, opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 25.05.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code to repeal the categorical exemption for SEPA review of proposed “infill” development. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_CB 118471 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118471. Relating to land Houston Zoning Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes relating to housing affordability proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: So now this is the first of three that are direct, direct amendments to the comprehensive plan. The scope of this particular council bill is adding language to the about around housing affordability to the comprehensive plan. So there's a series of amendments we make essentially establishing that it's a priority for the city to work on affordable housing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Sir, want back shot?
Speaker 1: I got him. I Harrill, i Muqata. I O'Brien II Okamoto Rasmussen and President Burgess. Nine In favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes relating to housing affordability proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_CB 118469 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118469. Relating to land used in zoning amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes needed as part of the Periodic Review and incorporate incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process and amending Section 23.52.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: So this particular amendment is the more we do traditionally the traditional component of the comprehensive plan amendment on an annual basis. There are a number of changes throughout the city. This includes what we heard testimony on about changing the land use map, the zoning around the Church of the Nazarene in West Seattle. But there's a whole host of other changes that have been through committee. I would like to amend this by adding some language around establishing growth estimates in urban villages. I discussed this at briefing, but I'd like to go ahead and read. In my amendment. They would add a Section four which reads The council requests that the Department of Planning and Development or its successor department develop a proposal for Council consideration in 2016 that allocates a share of estimated residential and employment growth outside of urban centers to urban villages. The Council further requests that the alternative include policies or a narrative description of a work program to monitor how growth in urban centers and villages will be tracked in relation to existing and planned infrastructure. Second rate. And so, as I mentioned, under the CPA ordinance and these amendments this year, we will no longer have growth targets anywhere . We will have growth estimates in urban centers, but not in the villages. And what this amendment does is ask DPD to come back to City Council in 2016 with a proposal on how to include growth estimates broken down by urban village.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments? Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: You're asking for questions relating to the entire bill.
Speaker 0: On this amendment first place. Councilmember Okamoto.
Speaker 4: The the latter part of the amendment speaks to.
Speaker 5: How.
Speaker 4: A work program to monitor how growth in urban centers and villages will be tracked in relationship to existing and planned infrastructure. Can you speak a bit more what planned infrastructure, what that refers to? I mean, it's intended to be broad. It would include things like transportation, parks, an open space, emergency services, fire stations, all the types of infrastructure utilities. And this puts it back on the department and the executive to come back with a plan as as the city grows that we're tracking the infrastructure investments concurrently you.
Speaker 0: Other questions or comments all in favor of Councilmember O'Brien's amendment. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The amendment is unanimously adopted. Any questions or comments about the legislation? Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just need a clarification from Councilmember O'Brien, if you could help with that. With regard to the Murgon Junction heard the Church of the Nazarene minister speak about that and I'm familiar with the church and the wonderful work that it does. But can you explain that text? Is it the one that says except where as part of a development proposal, a long standing neighborhood institution is maintained? Well, how does that. Relate to the church in its proposals. Is that? Is that the one that I think the minister is if you have a question about that, is if you look if you're on online, if you look under attachment one, be current and propose future land use map Morgan Junction Residential Urban Village that will pull up a map and show an area of the future land use map where we're going to make the. Make the changes to include that property in a multi-family residential area instead of a single family residential area. Do you see that? I see the math. Right. That's where the hash marks. Correct. So you're proposing that it be it go from single family to multifamily in that neighborhood or right around that parcel? Yes, that's accurate. Again, this is this is the future land use map. It's not the actual zoning change, but this is a prerequisite. Right. Happens. And then the church is supportive of that. For what reason? I have heard repeatedly over the past year from both church and community members, frankly, an amazing outpouring for what is a relatively modest change. I believe it's going to allow the church to redevelop their parcel with some housing units, which will provide the financing to amount, allow them to stabilize the church and open space that has been used as a community park for a number of years to do that on into the future. I'm seeing nods, so I think I got it roughly correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions? Please call the role on the passage of the amended legislation.
Speaker 1: Sir want bagshot Gordon Harrell, I Licata II O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Okamoto, I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen and President Burgess nine in favor nine opposed the.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. But before we do item nine, I want to alert folks that the Select Committee on Housing Affordability will meet approximately 5 minutes after the council meeting is over. Please read item nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes needed as part of the periodic review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process and amending Section 23.52.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10122015_CB 118470 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118470. Relating to land used in zoning. Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to the university community, urban center goals and policies, as well as the future land use map as part of the Periodic Review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014 2015 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Process. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: And there's a divided report on this legislation. So we'll begin with the majority report. Council member O'BRIEN Thank you.
Speaker 4: So the probably clearest way for folks to track this is to look at the attachment attachment one amendment to the future land use map. And that should give you an overview with the little bubbles that explain all the different changes in the map, where the changes are being proposed in the legislation as it came out of committee . This series of changes is all in anticipation of a neighborhood rezone that we're anticipate receiving from Department of Planning and Development sometime in 2016. It's something that's been discussed for a number of years. For a while, it was anticipated in 2015, but we expect to get that next year. And these are the future land use map changes that would accommodate the range of changes that will be be proposed in that in that rezone. Normally, we might take these concurrently. We know we traditionally do the comprehensive plan changes in March, but because next year we're doing comprehensive plan changes as part of Seattle 2035, and there's going to be a longer process. I anticipate that those changes won't come until much later in the year. And if we don't do these now, that would inhibit our ability to do the university rezone until after that was done, which likely would be too late in the year. Specifically in committee, there are a couple of differences. All that Councilmember Lucado speak to his alternative, but there are a couple of changes that we heard some concerns about. We discussed those. And Councilmember Burgess and I felt felt strongly that the proposal from DPD was solid.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Licata. I will be voting against this legislation because I well, I do recognize that there was a lot of participation by community members as well as our staff over a period of a one or one or two years. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of opposition still remaining in that neighborhood from the community council and particularly from folks in the residential areas that were included in the areas that are proposed for changes. The there was some compromises made in reducing the area. However, people living in that community felt that it did not go far enough. And they're concerned that the nature of the university district will dramatically change, particularly since this will open the door for increased uptake of zoning and therefore probably what they call the towers that will change the. I think the quality and I think the quality of living as far as casting large shadows, increasing of traffic and make it more difficult to provide even more open space in an area that does not have that much open space. They had asked that more time be used to take a look at those concerns. They felt that in particular the community council was not involved enough and that they are concerned about the University Community Urban Center potentially being impacted. So there'd be an increase in displaced residents from the existing available affordable housing as it was torn down for new development and without a plan to see how those individuals would be housed in the future so they could still have access to university without having to move further and further away and therefore contributing to the overall congestion in the university district. That is, plan should at this time be on hold. So I support their efforts on that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions, Councilmember Rasmussen?
Speaker 4: Thank you. I would like to hear from the majority of the committee how their response to the concerns that Councilmember Lakota raised about what I would describe as loss of neighborhood character, displacement of affordable housing, and what we see now, if you go to the university district, an incredible homogenization of what is a very eclectic community, both with regard to the type of housing income levels who are able to live there are in cultural organizations, longstanding community organizations as well. So this is what I think Councilmember Lakota, you've expressed concern about. And if that is true, then how how can we prevent those risks and those losses from occurring if this legislation goes forward? Is this the last opportunity to prevent those kind of losses? But anyway, I would love to hear from the majority their response to Councilmember Carter's concerns. Councilmember O'BRIEN So the I think a lot of the concerns that Councilmember Alucarda raised. Are probably more directed towards what will likely be part of a discussion around the actual reason for the university district. The you know, if you look at the map on attachment one, the specific changes we're making on this amendment to the comprehensive plan are relatively modest. There were some concerns about in some of the pockets of the neighborhoods where they would be. There's nothing specifically about these amendments that I mean, even without these amendments, there's lots of areas that could be considered for zones and towers throughout throughout the university district. But where and how we do that will be determined in that process, which is to come in 2016. I can speak specifically to, you know, within the urban village there is no single family zoning. It's all multifamily and commercial. There's a couple tiny pockets where we've expanded the urban village. One is around a church that wants to be able to add more ADA accessible accessibility from a parking lot. But they're not allowed to do that because it's in a single family zone. I didn't hear any opposition to that change. There's also a small piece of single family that's going to be incorporated now along Ravenna, and it's going to be turned into commercial mixed use. Again, I had I didn't hear any I don't recall hearing specific concerns about that. There were some folks that wanted to see some area taken out of the urban village. And we took a little bit out and they asked to take more out. And there's an area that is where there currently is a tower that's currently zoned multi-family residential. And the map would allow that to be multi-family, residential or commercial mixed use like an some Seattle mixed zone.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Student Bagshaw. Hi.
Speaker 1: Gordon. I harrow.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 1: Licata.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Okamoto.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen. No. And President Burgess high seven in favor to oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? We will reconvene at Councilmember O'Brien. What time? Three, ten, three, ten, 3:10. As the Select Committee on Affordable Housing, the council is adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE, relating to land use and zoning, amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to reflect changes to the University Community Urban Center goals and policies, as well as the Future Land Use Map, as part of the periodic review and to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2014-2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_Res 31609 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much will close the public comment period now and go back to agenda item number one. Consideration of resolution 31609. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So this is a resolution that came out of the Select Committee on Housing Affordability just over a week ago. This is a framework resolution that lays out the workplan for the Council as regards to hollow recommendations. There are three specific parts of the resolution. The first section talks about references, the attachment, which lists out the matrix of the different issues that are being prioritized when they'll be considered. But the outcomes we want to achieve are it also lays out the objectives we're trying to achieve, including increasing the number of rent controlled units, increasing preservation for folks in in housing. Also removing barriers for tenants, reducing barriers for new development to happen, and exploring programs to help existing homeowners. The second section highlights the asked to the state legislature. There are a number of laws that the state controls that we would like help on to support increased affordable housing. And finally, the third section lays out in adopts the would the goals set forth in the hall a process of 30,000 net new market rate units and 20,000 net new income restricted units.
Speaker 0: Over the next ten years. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of approves approving resolution 31609 vote I. I oppose vote no. The resolution is adopted. Eight in favor. Zero opposed. The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read item two. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council's intent to consider strategies to increase the availability of affordable housing in The City of Seattle; and requesting the State Legislature to adopt new policies or modify existing policies in order to provide additional opportunities for cities and counties to increase the availability of affordable housing. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_CB 118506 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118506 related to the tasty green space trails and the Bike Park Pilot Project and amending Section five of Ordinance one two, four, five, four, six. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. So I spoke to this this morning and also, as a reminder to my colleagues, this is something that we worked on a full year ago. And there was concern from those who opposed adding the new recreational opportunity in the green space to give us some more time. So we agreed to do just exactly that. And we developed a project advisory team and it was from the neighborhood with both the supporters and the opponents. The project advisory team met five times and in February recommended that we move forward with this. Our Board of Parks Commissioner Commissioners then took a look at it and the goals being to increase recreational opportunities in an area where there need to be more to connect our environment with our schools, our parks, our neighborhoods, and really to improve the oversight and actual diminution of some of the illegal activities that we know that were going on and this long recent green space. I do want to say thank you very much to all of you who volunteered to clean that up. I've enjoyed the work parties and I want to say a special thanks to Jay and also to my good friend, Mr. DeYoung. You've done a tremendous job of bringing the volunteers out. And what this will do now is move the $100,000 forward from the Neighborhood Matching Fund to be able to be spent on this. The outreach and planning will continue. Parks will come back to our Parks Committee Quarterly to report on it, and they will create an environmental checklist to evaluate the project as they go. And the evidence to damage to the wetlands erosion, vandalism, parking patterns that negatively impact the neighborhood will be considered and there will be adequate separation of bikes and pedestrians on this path . Bikes will be going around the perimeter in one direction. Pedestrians will have connections in two directions, and after the project is constructed, it's considered to be a 15 month pilot and Parks will come back, make a report. If the impacts are negative, they can make a change at that point. If they're positive, they can go forward. So again, I want to thank you to the Friends of Chiefs to Greenspace and Mountain View for your dedication to this project. I'm recommending that we vote yes and move forward with this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw, for helping lead us through this effort during the last year. I wanted to make sure that the city's policies that do protect our green spaces were being followed in this process. And as the project is carried out, if it is carried out, one of the things I think that's important to remember is that we do not prohibit uses or active uses in our greenbelt. But what we do say is that if active uses are going to occur in the greenbelt, they have to be minimal activities, ones that don't have a negative impact upon the greenbelt. And that's what we wanted to make sure. With regard to the proposed bike park and trail, I think that the Parks Department has done a good job of evaluating how best to construct a trail there that wouldn't have a negative impact upon the greenbelt. And they've come up with a design that is likely to not have a negative impact. This is just a 15 month pilot project that requires rigorous reporting from the Parks Department every quarter. They have to report back to the Parks Department on the effect of the bike trail in the greenbelt. So I think that this provides good protection to ensure that there is an active use, but also that it's not having a negative impact upon the greenbelt that's consistent with our city policies. In the meantime, we have asked the Parks Department to review and modify, if necessary, our greenbelt natural area guidelines. We want them to do that with broad public participation, and that will help guide further decisions. With regard to any other proposed uses in our greenbelt, we want to make sure that the policies that we adopt give clear guidance to the Parks Department when proposals are made to you, make active uses within the greenbelt, and that's what that process is to do, and it is underway now. So I do support this. I understand the community's concerns about the greenbelt. I, I appreciate very much their concerns and their stewardship over the greenbelt. And this process that we have moving forward will help to ensure that the effects that they're concerned about will not occur.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor. Remember Lakota.
Speaker 5: I have actually I was moved to ask some questions actually from our speakers today because my back show, if you could help me understand, I do remember voting before and I was under the impression that we were safeguarding the space and was also under the impression that this proposal would still do that. I, I seem to recall one of the points that we did not approve of was having mountain bikes go through the park. I thought that was one of those elements that was there. And so before you answered that one, I got a couple other questions. So my understanding is that the current design is a perimeter path, nothing through. One of the concerns I had was to stop bikes from going through the middle of the park. And so if you could address how we're monitoring that and then the issues were raised that this park would not longer be no longer monitoring it, although Cosmo Rasmussen said they would be civic, he clarified that. And also the statement was made that Parks has been not releasing information. I haven't heard that before. Have you heard any complaints about not releasing information? And the last is on the appeals for the hearing examiner. The first ruling was to proceed, as was pointed out, not significance. And maybe this is a question for someone else. I don't believe you generally hold moving forward if there's an appeal. My impression was that we generally go for it. But if you could answer this question, I'm sorry to pile them on.
Speaker 7: Yeah, right. And I didn't write them down as we go. So let's start with the beginning.
Speaker 1: One, and you may.
Speaker 7: Want to remind me as we go. The Parks Department did ask for the neighborhood to come together through this, Patty. And the agreement was made that we would not have a path going through the park, but it would be, as you said, a circumference park. So that is like the pilot. There is a lot of interest in making a pedestrian pathway like they've done down at the southern part of Chisti that connects the top of Beacon Hill down to the Columbia Street Station. There's a lot of interest in doing that with a pedestrian pathway, but that's going to be on hold for now. It's just a circumference around that around the edges where the bicycle and the two way pedestrian path will go in for now. And then we'll see how that goes. Remind me of the other questions.
Speaker 5: Question the information being released. Nothing but salient information not being released by person no.
Speaker 7: Nothing about that. I have Parks Department is listening today. We will let them know that there's been a particular request and to make sure that that's attended to. And the monitoring council member garden may have more information on that than I do.
Speaker 5: And the monitoring element.
Speaker 7: Monitoring is going on monitor is continually going on, particularly around the wetlands, the evidence of any damage, obviously species renewal, water quality erosion, any damage to the existing plants, any habitat disturbances. That monitoring is going to continue and a deep continuation every quarter. We'll come back and make that report to the Parks Committee beginning as soon as this gets going. So I imagine the next quarterly report will be December or January when we will hear about it. So I heard also the concern that there wasn't going to be monitoring. Very specific monitoring is going on. And that's in no small part because of the concerns that have been raised by the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: And in the last was the appeals process. We can gather more details on that.
Speaker 7: I can only give you this much is that the appeals are ongoing, but the keeper process will continue. And the as I said, the the impact on the park, the impact on the neighborhoods is important, critical. And that information will be coming back to our parks committee. So we will have all that. It's not like it's going away. It's not like it's being swept away. That's part of all of this stuff going forward. We're releasing the hundred thousand dollars so that the commitment to getting an effective project in place occurs and it starts right away.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I saw it on their hands, went into speakerphone.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Rasmussen I thought Councilmember Herrell was adamy, but he deferred to you or you deferred. Thank you. Just to answer Councilmember Lakatos question about reporting by parks permit as required by this council bill, it specifically says there have to be quarterly reports for the next 15 months. I know that Councilmember Banks have said is underway, but it's required by the ordinance as well. So that's codified.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herald.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I will be supporting this legislation and I have not missed any committee meetings where we've discussed this, you know, this, this Chishti Park You know, my parents lived about six blocks from it for 30 years and my son lives across the street from it. So when I've and I've met in homes I've met in. At the park have met at coffee shops to discuss this. And it saddens me that I have sort of a community sort of torn apart for something that could, I think, be a very beautiful asset, a beautiful gem for the South and of Seattle, and will be so under this vision. The monitoring piece is not taken lightly at all that I've been very critical of parks for certain projects in the past and will continue to be critical of parks if they do not deliver. But I'm asking them to deliver for the beauty of this park. You know, we have competing policies here. On the one hand, we are trying to look at greenspace somewhat new. As we approach our density. We are looking at a cultural piece where we can have a very diverse group of kids and young adults get together and and not only enjoy the the activity of mountain biking, but enjoy conservation and helping us get rid of some of these invasive species. We have a great opportunity in front of us, but we do have some geotechnical issues. We do have we know that I've looked at some of the some of the areas in the ground that we have to monitor. Jefferson Park is a one of our gems in the city. And, you know, parking is is terrible up there. And and so we don't know who's going to use this park and in parks does not have the skill set really to monitor parking. So I'm calling upon them to actually look at other departments to make sure we are monitoring how people are getting to the park at park and quite frankly, who are using the park. It does not bother me that if people from all over the city are using the park, but we need to know who is using the park and make sure again that we have neighbors that have been there for 20, 30, 40 years, that this is an enjoyable experience for all. The bottom line is we have a phenomenal group of volunteers, people who love the community as much as anyone else, putting a lot of blood, sweat and tears behind this effort. We have a great opportunity to have some cross-cultural experiences meeting this nature deficit and so many of our kids having a beautiful pedestrian trail alongside the bike trail, making sure that safety comes first, that this is a safe activity. We are going to learn more about what this entails as we balance the policy between minimal activity in greenspace and recreational activity. I think we have a tremendous opportunity and four in front of us and we will hold parks accountable. We will do more than monitor. We will evaluate, learn, invest where we have to and look forward to supporting this this this investment. Because I think if done right, it will be a tremendous gem for generations to come. And again, you know, if we're going to be completely honest and completely transparent, we do have a deep analysis that is is not completed. We have some pending issues in front of the hearing. Examiner In a perfect world, before we passed legislation would help have all of that in back of us. This is not a perfect world. I'm working very closely with both parks and again, everyone involved in this effort. We're not going anywhere in terms of monitoring this. And so let's let's make sure this works out for all communities. And thank you for I know this is not a great news for you. But again, let's keep the communication lines open. Let's preserve this beautiful gem and move forward as one community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Okamoto I Rasmussen I so want back shore garden i Harrill i Lakota. Hi O'Brien. I am President Burgess nine.
Speaker 2: In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items three, four and five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the Cheasty Greenspace Trails and Bike Park Pilot Project and amending Section 5 of Ordinance 124546. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_Res 31619 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31617. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Please read item seven.
Speaker 2: Agenda item seven. Resolution 31619. Approving interest rates set by the Seattle City Employees Retirement System Board of Administration for 2016. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Licata.
Speaker 5: Another resolution again dealing with our retirement system. And in this case, it does make a slight adjustment to the interest rates. And again, this is accordance with a review by our own financial consultants that it is financially fiduciary, responsible to the preservation of our retirement system.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting Resolution 31619 vote. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. The report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Please read item eight through the first semicolon.
Speaker 2: I've been held.
Speaker 0: By to meet.
Speaker 2: The report the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resilience Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118505 relating to the multi-family housing property tax exemption program and exemptions. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION approving interest rates set by the Seattle City Employees' Retirement System Board of Administration for 2016. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_CB 118505 | Speaker 2: The report the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resilience Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118505 relating to the multi-family housing property tax exemption program and exemptions.
Speaker 0: That's fine. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Okamoto.
Speaker 0: Excuse me.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Okamoto look alike, don't we? Yes. Thank you very much. The multi-family tax exemption program really has been foundational to the city's efforts, along with the housing levy to build affordable housing. This council bill will extend the program further. It's also a program that has taken Office of Housing, has taken seriously audit findings to strengthen and build the program even better. There are policy changes that were recommended by the.
Speaker 3: Executive that were consistent with.
Speaker 5: The ballot committee. In our committee, there were two further amendments that were made that, in my view, further strengthen the program, scaled it up for larger multifamily units, and then passed out of the committee with council.
Speaker 3: Members who want got in Burgess and the chair supporting it.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Lakota abstained from voting, in part because he has two.
Speaker 3: Amendments that he would like to present. I view those amendments as friendly. Amendments will second them and support them when they are made. I'd like to also.
Speaker 5: Say that while the housing levy and.
Speaker 3: The multifamily tax exemption has been.
Speaker 5: Foundational to the work of building more affordable.
Speaker 3: Units, it's not our work is not yet complete.
Speaker 5: That work will be completed by the implementation of the Hallow recommendations that were adopted in the well. The work program.
Speaker 3: Was adopted by.
Speaker 5: The resolution.
Speaker 3: Earlier in the in the meeting. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the Office of Housing.
Speaker 5: For really working this program hard, finding ways to strengthen it and to make it a even better tool than what it is. I want to remind my colleagues here that we will be going to the state legislature to further enhance the program.
Speaker 3: That is not part.
Speaker 5: Of these recommendations, but is still essential to be done to really fulfill the recommendations by the Heller Committee. So with that, I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the two amendments coming forward in support support the Council Bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Licata.
Speaker 5: But thank Katsura Okamoto for looking at these amendments and supporting them. I'm going to read both of them off. Perhaps we could do with them as a single vote. The first is this section was on Salon document on page 77 line 14, but is section 5.73.120 expiration program. The legislation came to us from the executive with recommendation that it be a permanent program. And what this does is set a four year period as we've had similarly in the past past four programs. They come again before the City Council for approval, as I've stated before in this morning's briefing session and at our committee meeting. I think it's important for the Council to be engaged in this program, since it is one of the major programs we have in this city providing affordable housing. And it's, as I say, in in line with what we've done in the past. The Second Amendment, this is on page 75, line three. It basically directs the director will annually analyze rent level information for affordable units in buildings that basically have received a certificate of exemption at the seven year period. What this does is it allows us to compare rent levels for market rate units of comparable size and age located in the neighborhoods. This will help us do an analysis for the directors annual report as to the effectiveness of the of of this program.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions? Comments. Councilmember Harrell, we.
Speaker 3: Did hear some testimony about trying to insert prevailing wage in the MFT program. I was always very interested in trying to accomplish that. I just wanted to say for the viewing public that it's at least my understanding that it does raise significant legal issues and that to some extent is inconsistent with some of the authority that we have. And I'm sure that I'm going to assume that that's why this is not part of this legislation. But, you know, I used that expression earlier. In a perfect world, we'd have many different things, but unfortunately it does not look like we can accomplish that in this legislation. But I did appreciate the comments made during public comment.
Speaker 0: Q Any other comments or questions.
Speaker 5: We need a second on this on these?
Speaker 0: Yes. And according to the clerk, we need to do these individually. Okay. So why don't you begin with your exploration?
Speaker 5: I remove the amendment regarding the expiration of the program.
Speaker 0: Seconds. Any further discussion? And Councilmember Okamoto, second at that amendment, is all in favor of adopting the amendment on expiration vote. I. I opposed vote no. The amendment is unanimously adopted and now the Second Amendment.
Speaker 5: Second Amendment is to section D on page 75, line three. And I had previously read that amendment second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? All in favor of the Second Amendment from Councilmember Licata on reporting. Vote I. I oppose Vote No. That amendment is also unanimously adopted. Are there any other comments on the ordinance? I as a member, Licata.
Speaker 5: I want to thank the Councilmembers for amending the legislation in front of us. With these two amendments. I. I have mixed feelings about this program. It is one of the main programs that the city relies on for affordable housing, and there have been some positive improvements to this version, particularly moving it up to 25% from 20% for the smaller units and also for encouraging units that have three and four bedrooms. So I will be supporting this legislation, but I think it's important for us to keep in mind that this is not a free program. We often refer to it as a tax shifting mechanism, but the research that the auditor due to the auditor's research we've discovered, not easily, I should mention, because there is some difficulty in extracting this information to King County that, well, there's about $12 million in tax shift, about actually about 10% of that 1.2 million in the past have actually been from revenue that we have foregone in the general fund. So there is a subsidy from the general fund. The discussion I think, that needs to happen going forward is given the subsidy that we have in this fund, is this the wisest use of our of our general fund to provide affordable housing in this in this makeup where we have a limit of 12 years? And also whether this is the particular groupings we want to provide affordable housing to and also in what neighborhoods. But that's a longer analysis. We've looked at it and poked at it in the past. We're not going to do that here. But I hope with these amendments, at least, we set the stage to make sure that we continue to monitor this program and at least assure ourselves or see if we can assure ourselves that this is a program that is cost effective in providing low income housing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Okamoto, I Rasmussen.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: So want back I got in I Harrell I Licata I O'Brien hi and President Burgess nine in favor in and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Transportation Committee Item nine has been held until October five, so please read item ten. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption Program; amending Sections 5.73.010, 5.73.020, 5.73.030, 5.73.040, 5.73.050, 5.73.060, 5.73.070, 5.73.080, 5.73.090, 5.73.100, and 5.73.110, adding Section 5.73.105, and repealing Section 5.73.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code to renew and modify the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption program. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_Res 31618 | Speaker 2: The report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item ten Resolution 31618a resolution endorsing recommendations for improving the City of Seattle's Traffic Incident Management Response, affirming the city's commitment to traffic, safety and mobility. Recognizing the application of the state's steering. Clear IT law RTW 46.5 2.0 202a and hold harmless law RTW 46.5 2.020 2b2 drivers and police officers in the city and directing the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to pursue an extension of the Hold Harmless Protection to Seattle Department of Transportation Traffic Incident Response Personnel. The committee recommends a full council adopt as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'm sure that all of us remember the nine hour closure of the viaduct and the effect that that had on traffic throughout Seattle last March. And no one wants a repetition of that experience where it seemed that there were options to safely clear the collision and also move traffic, get more traffic moving smoother and faster than had occurred. As a result of that experience, the mayor commissioned a study of what Seattle can do to improve how it clears these incidents more quickly. And so this summer that we received a report from a consultant, it was an 84 page report with 90 recommendations in terms of how the city can improve its response to these traffic incidents. And among the improvements that are recommended in the report are a clear policy of the city making clearing of vehicles a higher priority than preserving or protecting the vehicles involved. And in the past, the department, particularly the Department of Police Department, gave preference and deference to the vehicles, not allowing the the owners of the vehicles to decide how and when the vehicles should be moved off the roadway. Now, the priority is to clear the vehicles off the road, and if that can be done in a safe way and not compromised. Also public safety. There also is a recommendation to improve training of our police officers, our Department of Transportation staff and better coordination between them. We need to improve how quickly the tow trucks respond to these incidents. There needs to be education also to the public to move their vehicles out of the way under the street and clear it law that actually is exists in state law. Also, we know that our public officials, our police department are immune from liability when they're clearing collisions, but our Department of Transportation staff and other staff are not. That is provided by state law, and we are including in this resolution the intention to include in our state legislative agenda, amending the state law to request that our Department of Transportation and other officials who are not included from that in that community also be covered. We want these recommendations to be implemented as soon as possible. And the resolution states that the Council and the mayor want most of them done in 2015 of what can't be done in 2015, according to the schedule that's included in that report, then they need to be completed by 2016. Of course, our first priority is always the safety and an appropriate medical response and investigation of these incidents. And the traffic of our bridge crash last week showed that that is our highest priority of our police and our fire emergency officials. We want to commend them and we've done that already with regard to how they responded. But I think that we should also recognize that our Department of Transportation did a good job of getting word out quickly on the incident. And they also created a transit only lane on Westlake in order to keep traffic moving. So our start is making improvements now in terms of how they respond to these traffic incidents. But of course it will take time to completely implement all of these recommendations. There have been a lot of lessons learned from these various incidents that we've had in the last year, and the city simply cannot continue to carry out its incident response as it has been in the past. I know that our police department and our Department of Transportation agree with me on that, and they are beginning to implement those improvements. Now, I want to thank the interdisciplinary team that was made up of our Department of Transportation and the Seattle Police Department for working together to meet with the consultants to come up with these recommendations that we have now before us. I also want to particularly thank Heather Marks of the Seattle Department of Transportation, who really did a great job of pulling this all together. And then Anthony Auriemma of my staff, who worked with both our staff and Speedy to. Bring this resolution finally to the full city council and the committee recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting Resolution 31618 vote. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. The report and the chair will sign it. Report of the Energy Committee. Please read item 11. Through the first semicolon. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION endorsing recommendations for improving the City of Seattle’s traffic incident management response; affirming the City’s commitment to traffic safety and mobility; recognizing the application of the state’s “Steer It Clear It” law, RCW 46.52.020(2)(a), and “Hold Harmless” law, RCW 46.52.020(2)(b), to drivers and police officers in the City; and directing the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to pursue an extension of the “Hold Harmless” protection to Seattle Department of Transportation traffic incident response personnel. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_CB 118514 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Bill 118514. Relating to the City Light Department.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: The committee recommends the bill pass. Excuse me.
Speaker 7: I was going to getting ready to say the title sums it up, but.
Speaker 1: Since it was.
Speaker 0: Happy to have the whole thing read if.
Speaker 5: You'd prefer.
Speaker 7: So this agreement limits the liability for utilities like Seattle City Light for things that might be accidentally caused by other utilities and with mutual agreement like the satellite and other utilities, save money in the long run by not having to worry about expensive lawsuits between utilities and the energy committee. I recommend unanimously that we pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Okamoto Rasmussen I so want I back shop garden i Terrell.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: The Carter I O'Brien I and President Burgess nine in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 12th. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light, or his or her designee, to execute the Amended and Restated Agreement Limiting Liability Among Western Interconnected Electrical Systems, which enables City Light to manage and resolve inter-utility incidents with members of the Western Interconnected Electrical System and fosters the City Light Department’s customer relations and participation in important regional programs; and further authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light, or his or her designee, to execute amendments to such agreement that are consistent with the intent and authority set forth in this ordinance. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09282015_Res 31616 | Speaker 2: Agenda item 12 Resolution 31616 relating to the City Light Department endorsing the City Light Department's wholesale energy risk management policy governing wholesale energy transmission, ancillary services, renewable energy credit and greenhouse gas offset trading and their risk management. Establishing it as the policy governing the conduct of the wholesale energy, renewable energy credit and greenhouse gas offset risk management at the City Light Department and superseding resolutions three one, four, six, seven and 312, one six. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, council members one.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Bridges. This resolution makes minor updates and adjustments to city lights, wholesale energy risk management policy. Like other utilities, Seattle City Light trades, electricity on the open market. And as a matter of fact, we sell more than we buy. But because energy markets fluctuate in general, there is there always financial risk. So the city has to have some policies in place to limit, monitor and manage those risks. And this resolution makes minor adjustments recommended by city like to keep our policies aligned to the current conditions of the industry and energy committee recommends that we pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31616 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is adopted in the chair will sign it. I want to go back to agenda item number one, which is Resolution 31609. Council members who want had to step out very briefly and missed our vote on that resolution. So consistent with Council Rules six g. I move to reconsider the motion to adopt resolution 316090a second. Thank you. All in favor of reconsideration. Vote I. I oppose vote no. We now have item one in before us for reconsideration. Are there any comments or questions? All in favor of adopting Resolution 316609 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Is there any other business to come before the council? We will reconvene council members at 355. 5 minutes to four when we will sit as the Transportation Benefit District Board of directors. We are adjourned.
Speaker 5: For a break. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; endorsing the City Light Department’s Wholesale Energy Risk Management policy governing wholesale energy, transmission, ancillary services, renewable energy credit, and greenhouse gas offset trading, and their risk management; establishing it as the policy governing the conduct of wholesale energy, renewable energy credit, and greenhouse gas offset risk management at the City Light Department; and superseding Resolutions 31467 and 31216. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118463 | Speaker 7: Report.
Speaker 8: Of the Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Agenda. Item one Council Bill 118463 Relating to the Special Events Committee. Special Events Permitting and Special Events Fees Amending Sections 15.5 2.05.010.020.030.040.050.060.0800 and 15.5 2.090 of the Seattle Missile Code and Repealing and Replacing Section 15.5 2.0700 of the Seattle and the Zip code. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Okamoto.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Council President Burgess.
Speaker 1: Our special event fees have not.
Speaker 5: Changed since 1991.
Speaker 1: And when one looked at.
Speaker 5: The fees.
Speaker 1: Themselves, they really didn't make sense and they didn't serve the interests of the public at.
Speaker 5: All. We love our special events.
Speaker 1: They make our city what it is. But at the same time, I think the level of public subsidies and the public cost to special events was really becoming a point that we really needed to examine at the Office of Economic Development, reviewed and looked at other cities and best practices throughout the country, and found that.
Speaker 5: In fact, our fee structure.
Speaker 1: Was out of line with what others charged. There was a series of meetings of the of the.
Speaker 5: Committee to look at the different.
Speaker 1: Options.
Speaker 5: Available. We heard from the public.
Speaker 1: And there were several amendments made to the executive's recommendations that addressed many of the issues. For example, thanks to Councilmember Salant, there was clarifying language to protect free speech events and to and to separate those out.
Speaker 5: For a mix of free speech events. We created a two year gradual phase in an introduction to the fees.
Speaker 1: Kept the fees so that increases would not be exceed 10%, as well as measures to look at the program after the first year. An audit are our police costs, which in many cases are the largest cost of special event fees. I want to thank the Office of Economic Development for working with us. This did pass out of the committee without. Without objections.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: Okamoto. All right. Rasmussen. All right. So want.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Back shot? Gordon I. Harrill I. Lakota I am President Burgess nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items two and three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Special Events Committee, special events permitting, and special events fees; amending Sections 15.52.005, 15.52.010, 15.52.020, 15.52.030, 15.52.040, 15.52.050, 15.52.060, 15.52.080, and 15.52.090 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing and replacing Section 15.52.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118403 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item two Council Bill 118404 Requiring owners of certain low income housing to notify the Office of Housing and the Seattle Housing Authority of the owners proposed sale of that housing, establishing penalties and adding a new chapter to 2.907 to the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended and Agenda Item three Council Bill 118403 related to rental housing and amending settlements. Civil Code Subsection 22.206. 160c To require the owners of rental housing units to provide additional advance written notice to tenants prior to eviction. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Okamoto.
Speaker 1: Are we on.
Speaker 5: 118404? Yes. Yes. This council bill really acknowledges the increasing.
Speaker 1: Housing market in our area and the fact that it's becoming.
Speaker 5: More and more unaffordable for individuals to live.
Speaker 1: In in existing multi-family housing. This ordinance requires certain low income housing, low income housing owners.
Speaker 5: To notify.
Speaker 1: The Office of Housing, as well as the Seattle Housing Authority when it's their intent to sell their properties. In that way, there is an opportunity for the city or the Seattle Housing Authority to preserve that by purchasing it into public hands.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: All right, Okamoto, I Rasmussen. So want I back shop? Gordon, I Harrell, Licata and President Burgess. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Councilmember Okamoto, item three.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This ordinance in the same spirit. Is requires owners of rental housing units to provide advance notice to tenants prior to eviction. Another means to mitigate the blow of our increasing housing costs.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions? Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: All right. Okamoto, I so want I back. Shot by Gordon.
Speaker 7: High.
Speaker 2: Harrell, Licata and President Burgess. Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I should point out on these last two measures that we just adopted, this work was begun by Councilmember Clarke before she left the committee. So we're just wrapping up the work that she began. Please read items four through.
Speaker 8: 12 place agenda items, four through eight appointments, 173 and 1063107. The appointments of Kathleen Wilcox and the Reappointment Re appointments of Clare Brannon, Molly Holmes and Brookman Bruce Macintosh as member of Seattle King County Aging and Disability Services Advisory Committee for the Terms of Confirmation to December 31st, 2016, and agenda items nine through 12 appointments 1743177 The | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to rental housing; and amending Seattle Municipal Code subsection 22.206.160.C to require the owners of rental housing units to provide additional advance written notice to tenants prior to eviction. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118500 | Speaker 0: Questions or comments? All those in favor of confirming the appointment listed in Agenda Item 14. Angelique Davis Vote. I oppose vote no. The appointment is unanimously confirmed. Parks, Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read item 15 through the first semicolon.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 118500 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 3: This particular ordinance authorizes the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to acquire, through negotiation or condemnation, land and otherwise necessary property rights, commonly known as portions of 127, 54 and 130. Ode to Northeast Revere, Place for open space parks and recreation purposes and to execute except in record deeds and covenants and agreements deemed by the superintendent to be necessary to this transaction. I know that you all have been looking forward to this piece of legislation on 130/30 Street in the City Park neighborhood. This is something that some people came out to look at. I didn't have to because it happens to have been an area that I'm very, very familiar with, having lived there for many years. It is a street in use by the public for water access for something like 82 years. And it was lost to the public after a court decision. And this rectifies that. And we're so very happy the committee voted unanimously to approve this.
Speaker 0: Thank. Thank you. Comments. Council members who want.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Brendan Burgess. I would like to congratulate the Lake City activists who have for the last year mobilized, organized and pressured their elected officials to take action to restore their public access to Lake Washington. This is not a very widely known issue, but a whole community lost its small public beach and started to organize and demand that the city use eminent domain to restore it. And as of today, you have one. It is another example of how, you know, it shows that while there is no guarantee that we will win every time we fight. But if we don't, don't fight, we are guaranteed to lose.
Speaker 0: Council member, Rasmussen.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, first you called yourself neighbors. Neighbors. Now you call yourself activists. So thank you very much for fighting for what we thought was your neighborhood park for a very, very long time. And I really appreciate you invited me out to see your vision for what it can be. And we look forward to success in negotiating a transfer, a permanent transfer to the city. So thank you very much for all of your work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi, Okamoto. Hi.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen, I.
Speaker 2: Want.
Speaker 6: A.
Speaker 2: Backdrop. Hi, Gordon. Hi, Carol Licata. I am President Burgess, my native favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign. Thanks for coming down. Appreciate it. And keep watching carefully as we move forward because it gets complicated the further we go along here. So thank you. Please read item 16. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to acquire, through negotiation or condemnation, land and other necessary property rights commonly known as portions of 12754 and13002 NE Riviera Place for open space, park, and recreation purposes, and to execute, accept, and record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Superintendent to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City; placing conveyed real property under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118478 | Speaker 8: Agenda item 16. Council Bill 118478. Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the execution of an agreement for activation and programing of Westlake Park and Occidental Square Park and ratifying and confirming prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 3: This is an agreement between the department, the Downtown Seattle Association and the Parks Department to activate and to make our parks downtown more friendly to all. And we certainly endorse this unanimously by the committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Okamoto.
Speaker 1: All right. All right.
Speaker 2: So want I back shot? I got in. I Harrill I Lakota High and President Burgess High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 17 to the first semicolon. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the execution of an Agreement for Activation and Programming of Westlake Park and Occidental Square Park; and ratifying and confirming prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118493 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 118493 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 3650 34th Avenue South, and authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park and recreation purposes. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 3: This ordinance is would add to the acquisition of real property, commonly known as 36, 50, 34th Avenue South, and authorizing acceptance and recording the deed for open space parks and recreation purposes in an area where it will be very much appreciated by those who can use this park. And it will be very, very important to have that open space. And the committee approves this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Okamoto.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen All right, so want.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Bagshot garden?
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Harold Licata. I am President Burgess Knight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. Please read Item 20. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 3650 34th Avenue South; and authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118446 | Speaker 8: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 118446. Relating to land use and zoning amending sections 23.41.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code to adopt revised neighborhood design guidelines for the Roosevelt Urban Village. And. Amending section to 3.41.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code to replace map a for 23.4 1.012 and make minor corrections to clarify legislative intent. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So in 2012, the city council made a reason to the Roosevelt of an urban village out of that work. They decided it was time to update the design guidelines. Side guidelines are one of the pieces that the design review process looks at to make sure that new development is consistent with the neighborhood's vision for itself . So this came through. We heard a lot of support from the community for this and looked forward to passing it.
Speaker 0: Great questions or comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Okamoto.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen. So want.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Back? I got in I Harrell Lakota High and President Burgess at eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 21. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 23.41.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) to adopt revised Neighborhood Design Guidelines for the Roosevelt Urban Village; and amending Section 23.41.012 of the SMC to replace Map A for 23.41.012 and make minor corrections to clarify legislative intent. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CF 314279 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item 21 Clerk File 314279 Council Land Use Action to allow a new two storey fire station 22 facility and demolish the existing facility in an environmentally critical area located at 901 Roanoke Street. Project number 3017619 Type five. The committee recommends the project be approved.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. This is related to Fire Station 22. It's up on the Roanoke street, up on the near where 520 and I-5 come together. The we're going to fund the rebuild of that station and some of the setback and height requirements we need to amend to allow for this new facility to fit.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments. Those in favor of approving the project and granting the modifications of development standards vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the project as approved and the chair will sign the findings, conditions and decision of the City Council. The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Please read Item 22. | Clerk File (CF) | Council Land Use Action to allow a new two-story Fire Station 22 facility and to demolish the existing facility in an environmentally critical area, located at 901 Roanoke Street (Project No. 3017619; Type V). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118507 | Speaker 8: The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item 22 Council Bill 118507 relating to the City of Seattle's Emergency Notification and Alerting System Establishing Alert Seattle as the city's emergency notify notification and alerting system. Adopting policies governing the use of thereof, including administrative guidelines and a governance charter, and repealing ordinance number 122527. The committee recommends the council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I don't think this is the item that everyone's still waiting to see, but nevertheless, it's important legislation updating our emergency notification, alerting alerting system. May recall that in 2014 this Council allocated moneys in the budget to replace our outdated communication notification system. And as of this legislation, does the new system called Alert Seattle, will be used to send warnings and time sensitive information to all people in the city residences, businesses, organizations, public agencies during and after an emergency event. The system may be also used to send or urgent non-emergency information, such as the disruption of services and road closures . Just by way of background. In 2007, this city adopted ordinance 122527 that related to our communication notify notification system for the city. This new system that requires many departments, Finance and Administrative Services, Information Technology, Office of Emergency Emergency Management, along with eight other city departments, all agreed to do a competitive procurement process and select a vendor. And this new system is called Alert Seattle. And the contract was signed January 23rd, 2015. And this legislation ratifies that agreement and our policies moving forward for a new system, the committee recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi, Okamoto. Hi. Rasmussen. Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi, Gordon. I Harrill. I Lakota. Hi. And President Burgess nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 23.
Speaker 8: Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31614 Endorsing a vision for the City of Seattle to become a city with zero use of detention for youth and establishing a path forward to develop policies that eliminate the need for youth detention. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to The City of Seattle’s (City) emergency notification and alerting system; establishing AlertSeattle as the City’s emergency notification and alerting system; adopting policies governing the use thereof including administrative guidelines and a governance charter; and repealing Ordinance Number 122527. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_Res 31614 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item 23 Resolution 31614 Endorsing a vision for the City of Seattle to become a city with zero use of detention for youth and establishing a path forward to develop policies that eliminate the need for youth detention. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sister Danish. Sister Danish. Thank you for clapping on my last piece of legislation because this new legislation we're about to talk about recognizes that from the time your family and I grew up in the streets of Seattle, Times of change, we become a country and a city of mass incarceration. And it's I'll tell you, it's amazing what we can do when no one really is doing it for the credit. And in that spirit, I want to recognize the champion and leader of this legislation and turn the microphone over to Councilmember Mike O'Brien. And there's some amendment, an amendment I think the community is is approved. And I'll defer to you and I'll reserve my comments for toward the end. Great. Thank you so much, Councilmember Harrell. I would like to move to amend this by substituting version four for version three. Just a note for those of you looking online, the the amended version in our on our books says version three. But that's actually the version four. We just failed to correct that. So the amended add, the amendment adds a few more recitals, cleans up some language, also adds a source for a question that came up about one of the recitals during committee. I want to say that I acknowledge all my colleagues who were at the committee that worked through that, that language we took back to community and community folks had been working on this, had a chance to review that. And my understanding is that they support the amendments that I'm putting forward today. So I would move substituting version four for version three that. Can I get.
Speaker 0: Any questions or comments all in favor of substituting version four for version three vote? I oppose Vote No. The motion carries. We have version four in front of us.
Speaker 1: So, Councilman Harold, you mind if I speak to it and then I'll. I'll sit down. I want to start by acknowledging the the woman who testified about this resolution being could be seen as just a an act of good faith, but nothing else changes. And I think that's absolutely right. This is a very important step today for the city to take this action. And I think this is bold action. But this by itself would do nothing to change the reality out there. And we just acknowledge that this is a step in a very long process, a process that I know folks in the community have been working on for many years. And we have a lot of other steps to take going forward. Specifically, one of the items that this resolution calls out as an intent of the city council to fund community based organizations that are doing anti-racist work and have been working to eliminate the tension of youth, that we can help fund their work going forward, because we recognize that despite some very good efforts for a number of years , the reality is still really embarrassing about how many youth are in detention. And we're not going to change it by continuing the past practices. We need to center this work around communities who are directly impacted, specifically young black people who are being put in jail. They need to be a part of the solution. I want to. I really want to thank Community who has been working so hard on raising awareness around this and just acknowledge that I certainly would not be standing here today in support of this without a lot of really hard work on your part to get me to where I am. So thank you for doing that work.
Speaker 0: Other questions or comments. Council members, I want you to.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Burgess. First, I would like to join Councilmember Ryan in thanking all the activists who put forward the vision of zero youth detentions for the city and organized to force it on the city's agenda. And this is really a culmination in some ways, but certainly not the end of a growing movement against a racism that is so integral to our criminal justice system. I wanted to list some sobering facts. The U.S. has more people in prison than any other country in the history of the world. The constitutional amendment that bans slavery makes an exception for people in prison, and there is more forced labor of prisoners today than there was at the height of slavery before the Civil War. Corporations across the country are making staggering profits off this prison labor. The majority of prisoners in the United States are people of color, with African-American people alone making up nearly 1 million of the 2.3 million incarcerated individuals. That racial disproportion extends to youth detentions right here in Seattle, and it is completely unacceptable. Incarcerating young people is inhumane, destructive, and it is an indictment of our whole society. I will be supporting this resolution and at the same time, we should be clear that words are not enough. This is the same council that, with one exception, voted for the New Year jail only months ago. I appreciate I appreciate all council members voting on this resolution, and I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's work on this. And we also should fight to make sure that these excellent sentiments will be reflected in the upcoming budget and in the upcoming policies that will be carved by City Hall policies on funding for youth jobs, funding for apprenticeship programs, targeted, targeted towards inner city young people programs and policy advocacy to end the racial biases in schools. A real push to address inequality by passing a millionaires tax in Seattle to fund mass transit and education and policies. Bold policies to address the deep housing unaffordability in our city. Thank you again. I'll be voting yes and thank. Thank you. So I will be supporting this as well. And I'm speaking with my former prosecuting attorney's hat on. So thanks to to Mike's eyes, Mike Moynihan here today. He's over there. Mike, I want to say thank you to Mike O'Brien, of course. But Mike Moynihan, thank you for coming to our table last week. And I appreciate all the work that you have done and you will be doing, and I look forward to working with you . So I want to say this. This is called Vision Zero detention, but it's got to be more than a vision. It has to be a commitment. And I'm really excited about this prospect. A couple of things. And again, we talked about this last week with the two mikes, and that is following through with more than just this community, but with our city as a whole, with our school district, with the community organizations and with the youths themselves. I think there are voices that have not been heard. Bring them to the table and figure what we can do to really make changes here. And the kinds of alternatives to incarceration that we have seen that works are the alternative dispute resolution, restorative justice programs. I worked on these as just when they were nascent when I was at King County. We know that they can work when we've got people working behind them and with the entire community. I also want to work closely with our partners, our judges in the municipal court, in King County Court with King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Dan Soderberg himself has recently proposed something that is called the Family Intervention and Restorative Services, and it's geared to provide services to families and to youth when there are problems in that family and those that are struggling with domestic violence. We know that juvenile DV is a problem because it rarely has intimate partner violence, but it does show up in families. And families, of course, do not want to see their children going into jail. But we need that rehabilitative services and as council members want just spoke to having this in our budget coming up this coming year is going to be important. So I just want to say this, that including the community, we want to listen to all voices. We want to protect the youth. And we want to have a good evaluation of what it is that we're putting together. I, frankly, want to see this as a national model. My goal would be to get this in place this year and to make sure that everybody feels safe, every neighborhood feels safe, and that the violence is reduced in our city citywide.
Speaker 4: As a father.
Speaker 3: I just want to add a few words. Of course, I want to thank the cast members.
Speaker 5: O'BRIEN And so on. Who led the charge.
Speaker 3: On the council? But, you know, we wouldn't even be here today with the resolution if it wasn't really for you, the activists. They're the ones that create the huge pressure in the county and also in the city. Like, so often, the best legislation in the city really comes from the people who organize and quite honestly, force the decision makers to face the reality that often we don't want to face. I do want to make two small points. One is we have to make sure that the resolutions followed up by actually devoting funds in our budget won't do any good just to do resolution if we don't fund what we need to do to make sure that services get out. And secondly, and this is a broader sort of horizon, we would be in a very ironic situation if we focus our attention on assuring that fewer youths become incarcerated, and yet we change the definition of youth so that more and more of them are being tried as adults, which has been the trend. So we have to also be alert to make sure that we do not have our youth actually end up being in jail as adults. So that's another effort that we have to continue to watch. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Harrell, you can close discussion.
Speaker 1: I'm going to take it home. In King County. A very unfortunate fact is that one third of the juvenile domestic violence cases are right here at home in Seattle. One third of these cases are ours. You know, a few few years ago, I was I was working here in the county, and I got a call from the public school person and they said, my daughter, who was in middle school at the time, was assaulted. And being her father and she is the youngest. I as a father, I was ready to kick some butt here who assaulted my daughter. And I found out what had happened and talk to my daughter. And she was fine. But she she required a little medical attention. But it was it was a boy. And so I insisted on getting the right approval to go up there and see this boy. And the school officials were a little concerned about what this father was going to do. And I said, I want to just meet this young man. And so it a supervised visit. And I got to know him. And as it turned out, as boys would be, he actually had a crush on my daughter and I spent time with him. And I subsequently would take him out to lunch to get to know him. And he didn't know his father and he was being raised by his grandfather. And this is a pretty serious event because the youth authorities could have very well been involved. He could a very well been in custody. And it was a very serious matter at the time. And I share that story with you to say that, as I said, a committee that it is completely unnatural for a youth to commit violence, to hate himself and hate others around him. That our country now and I talked about such a dinosaur because we used to run these streets and we were much younger and still do you know, I don't run the streets anymore, but but the Times Times were quite different from those dinosaur days to when I grew up to now we have witnessed firsthand what this country is doing to to our own to our own people, massive incarceration. I mean, we've most of us in here have read the book, The New Jim Crow Laws, and we're familiar with the studies coming out. It's a travesty in this country. So this vision is a is the is a humane vision. It's a smart vision. And again, all of my great colleagues have said the right things. We're going to put some resources behind this. Thank you. The community activist. And remember, I preface this by saying it's amazing what happens when really no one cares about the credit. I do want to thank Mr. Michael Moynihan for coming to the table. And it was an honor to invite you to the table. You blessed us with your presence. Ariel Heart from ending the prison industrial complex. Ariel Thank you. Thank you for your community activism. And again, I look forward to the unanimous vote and it is our honor to serve you. This is just the beginning of this fight. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All in favor of adopting Resolution 31614 vote i. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Thank you. There's a different but related matter that I'll mention now. The Seattle School Board will vote Wednesday evening of this week on a new policy greatly restricting, if not prohibiting out of school suspensions . And we know. We know that some of these issues that we've been discussing over the last several months with regard to juvenile detention at the facility up at 14th Avenue, start really early in life. And so this is a letter to the school board and to the superintendent of our school district having the council weigh in on this topic and urging them to adopt new policies which are similar to what the city has adopted, both in our families in education levy and also in our Seattle preschool program, which specifically prohibit suspensions or expulsions. And isn't it sad that we have to adopt that kind of policy for three and four year olds in preschool? So, colleagues, I'm going to circulate this letter here on the dais for you to consider. And we talked about it briefly this morning and briefing. And if you would sign that, I'd appreciate it. The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read Item 24. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION endorsing a vision for The City of Seattle to become a city with zero use of detention for youth, and establishing a path forward to develop policies that eliminate the need for youth detention. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09212015_CB 118466 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item 26 Council Bill 118466 relating to the implementation of the 2016 Stormwater Code Update.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Good. Thank you. And again, Cheryl, thank you for this. This particular council Bill, it's a complimentary piece of legislation to the stormwater code and it implements the changes to the stormwater code in our land use building and grading and residential codes. This particular bill is necessary to ensure that all the regulations that are related to development uniformly reflect when the new requirements take effect and it will apply to all relevant city development regulations beginning January.
Speaker 7: 1st of 2016. We recommend Do Pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill o'brien.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Okamoto I Rasmussen so want back shot. I got in I Harrill I Lakota and President Burgess favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 27. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the implementation of the 2016 Stormwater Code update; ensuring that the City’s local program for stormwater regulation meets substantive requirements of the State Department of Ecology; amending Sections 22.170.120, 23.22.028, 23.22.074, 23.24.050, and 23.76.032 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 106 of the 2012 Seattle Building Code; and amending Section R105 of the 2012 Seattle Residential Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118487 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Agenda Item 24 Council Bill 118487 Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute for and on behalf of the city. A concession agreement granting Fifth Avenue Sports LLC, DBA, Green Lake Boathouse the right to operate a concession providing boat rental service and retail and food sales at the department's facility at Green Lake Park. The committee recommends a council bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember God.
Speaker 1: This is the long term operator of the Green Lake boathouse. A concession agreement between that that long time operator who's been there for many years and who has had great support from the community, they know him. What's been different about lately is that there are so many more different ways to enjoy the lake paddleboarding and boating on the lake. And this is an opportunity for people to enjoy one of the most popular parks in Seattle. And we definitely do. Or urge support from the other countries of the Council.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Carol. I look at it. O'BRIEN Hi, Okamoto. Rasmussen So want I picture garden? I am president burgess nine in favor and opposed the bill.
Speaker 2: Passes in the chair will sign it. Item 25 was referred back to committee.
Speaker 7: Item 26 Agenda Item 26 Resolution 31610 relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing applications for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for Youth Athletic Facilities projects as provided in the WAC 286 and subsequent legislative action. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a concession agreement granting Fifth Avenue Sports, LLC d/b/a Green Lake Boathouse the right to operate a concession providing boat rental service, and retail and food sales at the Department’s facility at Green Lake Park. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_Res 31610 | Speaker 7: Item 26 Agenda Item 26 Resolution 31610 relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing applications for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for Youth Athletic Facilities projects as provided in the WAC 286 and subsequent legislative action.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 7: The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 1: This is a resolution authorizing application for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. The grant would be used for youth athletic facilities, projects, and we certainly do endorse approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31610 vote I. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. The report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee. Please read Item 27.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 27 Resolution 31602 Adopting revised rules for City Council quasi judicial proceedings and repealing the previous rules that were adopted by Resolution 31375. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing applications for grant funding assistance to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for Youth Athletics Facilities projects as provided in WAC 286 and subsequent legislative action. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_Res 31602 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item 27 Resolution 31602 Adopting revised rules for City Council quasi judicial proceedings and repealing the previous rules that were adopted by Resolution 31375. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is largely a clean up bill. That was the work of the result of Martha Lester, one of our last pieces of work before she left us on the council. She staff the committee on a quasi judicial matter over the past year or so in the process. As you may imagine, she notified all sorts of things with our quasi judicial rules that could use them clean up. And she went in there and did that. There are a few areas where it wasn't clear on the unique matter we were staffing how to respond, and so we interpreted during those rules. But she made some recommendations on how we cleared that up. And so those are all passed out of committee.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting Resolution 3160 to vote. I oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted. The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Please read item 28. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION adopting revised rules for City Council quasi-judicial proceedings, and repealing the previous rules that were adopted by Resolution 31375. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118476 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item 28 Council Bill 118476 relating to the Seattle Police Department authorizing the Chief of Police to issue Special Police Officer Commissions to qualified government employees to conduct limited law enforcement duties, or to former police officers or parking enforcement officers to conduct traffic control. Eliminating the authority to authorize retired police officer commissions. Amending Section 3.28150 and repealing Sections 3.28.4 or 50.460.470 and 0.480 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the Council bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So this is an ordinance that modifies the portion of our code that deals with special commissions and retired police officer commissions. So currently, the code authorizes the chief police to commission persons engaged in private security employment to assist the police department in enforcing the laws. However, Speedy does not issue the Special Police Officer commissions to persons engaged in security work. And as such, this kind of work is regulated under the RTW Chapter 18 170. So we now recognize the City of Seattle has a need for qualified persons with limited law enforcement authority to assist the police department where appropriate. And the city of Seattle has a need for qualified person to conduct traffic control. So currently, to explain the sort of the current situation, a retired officer with the retired police officer commission has the same authority as an active police officer. He or she may wear his or her Seattle Police Department uniform. They may carry a weapon. However, this retired officer with a retired police officer commission is not considered an employee. They have no assigned supervisor. They're not required to have an ongoing training as required by the settlement agreement. As an example, they're not readily identifiable to public. From from there, not publicly listing from active duty police officers and are not subject to the discipline for violations of the Seattle Police Department policies or city policy. So for these reasons, the department and the executive and the Council hopefully believed it appropriate to amend this section to grant the Chief of Police Authority to issue these types of commissions that grant limited law enforcement authority to certain qualified city employees or grant very limited law enforcement authority to conduct traffic control to these retired commission police officers and parking enforcement officers. So this council bill appropriately repeals the older sections 328450 through 328480 to eliminate the category of retired police officer commissions. So again, the problem we are solving with this legislation that are that we are ensuring that people who get special commissions only get the type of commission that they will need to do the work that they are in fact doing. In addition, Council Bill 118476 will narrow the focus on and the scope on who gets special commissions. This legislation again, again, is about narrowing the amount of work that is done and is about focusing or assisting the police department and the city as opposed to helping one individual in their employment situation. I'll sort of close by saying there's no fiscal implications with this legislation. And on August 19th, the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee unanimously voted. This legislation passed. Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harrell, I, Carter O'Brien, Okamoto Rasmussen, Sergeant Bagshaw, Gordon High and President Burgess nine and favorite and opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 29. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Police Department; authorizing the Chief of Police to issue Special Police Officer Commissions to qualified government employees to conduct limited law enforcement duties or to former police officers or parking enforcement officers to conduct traffic control; eliminating the authority to authorize Retired Police Officer Commissions; amending Section 3.28.150, and repealing Sections 3.28.450, 3.28.460, 3.28.470, and 3.28.480 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118483 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 118483 related to the city's emergency management program, adding sections 10.0 2.045 and 10.0 2.047 to the Seattle Municipal Code to refine the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Management Management and amending sections 10.0 2.050 through 10.0 2.110 of the Seattle Ms.. Code. To accommodate these refinements, the Committee recommends the Council bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So the city's emergency management program has evolved in the last ten years from primarily first responder focused program to what can be only described now as a full fledged whole community program, including the roles, responsibilities, training and practice for nearly all city departments and dozens of community partners. So the Seattle Municipal Cole chapter describing this program as enacted in the seventies, with only minor departmental name change in the last 15 years and really no longer reflects the strength and breadth of our current program. And so since that time, national standards for emergency management accreditation have been developed. And so the suggested revisions are more in line with the national standards and the substantive changes. Substantive changes can really be categorized in four areas. Number one, the new OEM director will be appoint an appointed position as it is now. The OEM director will oversee an established program. The program abides by an incident command system, and the mayor's emergency executive board will act as the policy oversight body during these extenuating circumstances. And the current code is basically silent on these issues. Ten years ago, when the current OEM director was appointed, this appointment was not subject to council confirmation. And just by way of context, context, the director technically reports to the Chief of police, but in practice this OEM director is a captain position reports also to the mayor. So six different chiefs of police and the current OEM deck director has served under all strike that have all been supportive of this kind of arrangement. This legislation establishes the Office of Emergency Management. However, the office will remain a division within the police department unless the Mayor wishes to move it, which is currently under charters within the mayor's discretion. Again, on August 9th, on August 19th, the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee made a recommendation, passed this legislation. I ask for your support.
Speaker 2: Questions or comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harrell I Lakota High O'Brien, Okamoto Rasmussen, Sergeant Bagshot Gordon and President Burgess. Hi nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items through th4. | Ordinance (Ord) | An ORDINANCE related to the City’s Emergency Management Program; adding Sections 10.02.045 and 10.02.047 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) to refine the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Management; and amending Sections 10.02.050, 10.02.060, 10.02.070, 10.02.080, 10.02.090, 10.02.100, and 10.02.110 of the SMC to accommodate these refinements. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118438 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 35 Council Bill 118438 Relating to historic districts. Adding a new chapter to 5.30 to the Seattle Municipal Code, creating the Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District, specifying the District's boundaries. Abutting criteria for designating the district. Establishing a procedure for preserving significant physical elements within the District. Establishing the Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District Application Review Committee. Providing for administration and enforcement of this ordinance and amending Sections two 2.900 C .1010. And Table C, dash one for section 2.900 C .010 of the Seattle Municipal Code to provide for the collection of fees for interpretation of historic district regulations regulations by the Department of Neighborhoods. The committee recommends a council bill pass as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and thank you for reading that so nicely. This bill designates an area within Magnuson Park as the Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District, and it adopts a procedure for preserving various physical elements within the park. And I specifically want to say thank you to Lynne Ferguson. You mentioned our two met to people mentioned earlier today during public testimony, Randy Williams and Jordan Bader. The great work that Lyn Ferguson in particular has done. And I do want to personally recognize her and others. The Sandpoint Naval Air Station Landmark District recognizes the importance of this historic Sandpoint Naval Air Station, and it was designated as a national historic district in 2010 and designated a local historic district by our Landmarks Board in 2011. And by us adopting this newest landmark district, we are taking the final step in creating the district. And I do again want to recognize so many people who are involved in this, including Councilmember Gordon. Thank you for coming to the committee and talking about it and the number of people from the Friends of Sandpoint, Magnuson Park historic district that have done so much work. And we encourage passage of this legislation which was unanimously recommended out of our committee.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Rasmussen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: This was one of the first issues I worked on when I became a legislative assistant.
Speaker 2: Many decades.
Speaker 0: Ago now. And the designation of.
Speaker 4: The district is really historic. It's been sought after by the neighbors in the community for many, many years. The neighborhood is really active, the particularly the various neighborhood of out of the east and strongly advocated for the historic preservation of the Sandpoint Naval Base. And what is remarkable today is that the community supports this.
Speaker 0: Designation and all the incentives and.
Speaker 4: Controls.
Speaker 0: Particularly given its contentious and.
Speaker 4: At times very.
Speaker 0: Protracted controversies that have arisen between the city and the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Rusty Williams It was great to see him here appropriately mentioned.
Speaker 0: Lynne Ferguson But also I do think we have to remember.
Speaker 4: The work that former City Councilmember Jeannette Williams did. It was one of the key.
Speaker 0: Issues that she worked on during her time on the city council, preserving.
Speaker 4: The Sandpoint Naval Air Base, the magnificent park.
Speaker 0: And then her neighbor, who often isn't mentioned, but she was really an active partner with Jeannette on this.
Speaker 4: Was was Dorothy McCormick who McCormick who.
Speaker 2: Became an assistant to former Mayor.
Speaker 4: Royer.
Speaker 0: So it's my hope that this designation will spur restoration.
Speaker 4: And renovation and re-use of some of the other buildings on the.
Speaker 0: Site, including the fire station Building 18, which is in very poor condition right now. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gordon I just want to say that I'm certainly appreciative of all the work, all the hard work that's gone into this has taken many years to get this far. And we certainly do need to thank Lynne Ferguson, folks in her committee. We need to think a lot of the neighbors around the area and I might say that just as a little historical footnote, it was the first place that my father was stationed at when I came to the city and which brought me here. So it means a great deal to me personally as well. And I want to thank everyone who worked so hard on it. It's really great to see it finally coming to fruition.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harrell I look at it. Right. O'Brien Hi, Okamoto. Rasmussen All right. So want back show? Hi, Gordon. Hi. Now, President Burgess. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 36.
Speaker 7: Agenda Item 36 Council Bill 118468. Relating to the Landmark Preservation Board amending section 25.12.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the qualifications for members of the board and making technical corrections. The committee recommends a council bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Historic Districts; adding a new Chapter 25.30 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); creating the Sand Point Naval Air Station Landmark District; specifying the district’s boundaries; adopting criteria for designating the district; establishing a procedure for preserving significant physical elements within the district; establishing the Sand Point Naval Air Station Landmark District Application Review Committee; providing for administration and enforcement of this Ordinance; and amending Section 22.900C.010 and Table C-1 for Section 22.900C.010 of the SMC to provide for the collection of fees for interpretation of Historic District regulations by the Department of Neighborhoods. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118468 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item 36 Council Bill 118468. Relating to the Landmark Preservation Board amending section 25.12.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the qualifications for members of the board and making technical corrections. The committee recommends a council bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Bagshaw Thank you very much. This piece of legislation actually amends the qualification for members of the Landmarks Preservation Board. To date, we currently require a representative from the City Planning Commission to attend and be part of the Preservation Board. And the City Planning Commission actually raised their hand and said, we've got a lot to do. And rather than having members of the Planning Commission be part of this, the Landmarks Preservation Board members are suggesting that the volunteer be changed to recruit a member of the instead of the planning commission, but somebody who's got the similar kind of experience. So that's the recommendation and the legislation passed unanimously out of the committee. And we ask for your support.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harold. All right. Look at it. Hi. O'Brien, Okamoto. Rasmussen. All right, sir. Want back shot? I got it. I am President Burgess nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 37. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Landmark Preservation Board; amending Section 25.12.270 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change the qualifications for members of the Board, and making technical corrections. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118481 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item 37 Council Bill 118481 relating to the Cedar River Municipal Watershed and amending the secondary use policies adopted by ordinance 114632 to provide for the limited application of the herbicide and Wmas appear to treat invasive knotweed spray species. The committee recommends a council bill passed.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Liccardo, do you want to present your amendments? And I will support them and then I can speak to the amended legislation.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Liccardo Thank you, Customer Bagshaw And thank you for your work on this ordinance. I have two amendments and I'll read both of them. The First Amendment is I moved to amend the Council Bill 11 8481 with attachment one at page six, third paragraph, third sentence by the reading between early August and mid-September and adding a new fourth sentence entitled Prior to application. Visual inspection is made to verify that the plants are one in the pre bud stage at the time of the application and two are not actively being worked by pollinators and is conductive to such activity as the First Amendment. The Second Amendment. I move to amend Council Bill 11 8481, Section one, the second to last sentence by substituting a sentence with the following sentence. Seattle Public Utilities will provide Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods a committee of the City Council, an annual report on the Knotweed treatment program in the Cedar River municipal watershed, summarizing the effectiveness of the Knotweed treatment program. Evaluating the long term financial and environmental implications for knotweed control beyond 2018. Evaluating the water quality monitoring results. Summarizing the latest available science on the environment and human health effects of IMA Zapper and describing any plans for the future application of a zebra within the watershed, including maps of proposed treatment areas. Estimated quantities of IMA zapper. I'm really destroying this name. Sorry. To be applied. The application methods and schedules and plans for water quality monitoring in front of each of our deaths is the actual wording in red to strike out in blue is the substitute and I'll address both amendments after the second. Secondly, these amendments came forward by those in the Washington Beekeepers Association, and they pointed out that the legislation could be improved by making sure that the guidelines provided were consistent with the guidelines provided by the Washington State Noxious Weeds Department. And that. By codifying them, we assure that we bring forward in the future that we do not fall back on practices that may fall through the cracks and therefore result in harming the population and the ability to pollinate plants in this area. I want to thank the citizens who are beekeepers, including our former mayor, Wes Allman, for participating in a activity that hasn't really been given much, I suppose attention but critical to the sustaining our agriculture that provides many of our food sources. So I'll leave sit at that.
Speaker 2: So the First Amendment is Mark Amendment number one. Are there any further questions or comments about this amendment? Those in favor of passing amendment number one, vote I. I oppose vote no. The amendment is adopted. Amendment number two is before us. Any questions or comments?
Speaker 1: One quick, quick comment and that we don't have line numbers on this one, but there's a specific reference to the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. And there's the intention of this amendment is to bring back regular reports. I would recommend and suggest that we have Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhood Committee or its successor.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I that's a friendly amendment to the amendment because I caught that as I was reading it. And that's the language that we should be included that's accepted.
Speaker 2: And we'll we'll make that part of the amendment. Any further comments or questions? All in favor of adopting amendment number two, vote I.
Speaker 0: By a plebiscite. Vote No.
Speaker 2: Amendment number two is adopted. We now have the ordinance as amended in front of us.
Speaker 1: So just to speak quickly to this ordinance, it provides for the continued application of this herbicide. And the purpose of this is to abate the invasive knotweed that's found in the Cedar River watershed. And we've tried to do a lot of things. We first started off by injecting amounts up here into the plants. We tried light starvation by putting black plastic over it. And it really is an annoying weed that was brought here, unfortunately, years ago because somebody thought it looked great. But it's been taking over and taking over around the watershed, which provides the native species, provide the kind of of tenacity to hold the banks together. But the knotweed has proven not only to take over for the natives, but then also begins to diminish the water and the water quality and especially along the Cedar River. It's important because that's where we get our drinking water. We, the council, have twice approved the use of a mouse up here along the Cedar River. This legislation will allow it to continue through 2018. And I do want to recognize the beekeepers concerns. Seattle Public Utilities has reassured me that they are well aware of this, that they do not apply the mouse up here during flowering. They do the visual inspections. But as Councilmember Licata pointed out, this is good to have it clarified in our ordinance. So I certainly support the amendments as proposed.
Speaker 2: Any other. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Just briefly comment. I. It's really disappointing, frankly, that we're at a point where we're applying pesticides within the watershed. And but for me, this is an issue that was important when I was chairing the committee a few years ago. And the threat of this invasive species in the watershed is so dire that I think it definitely justifies and warrants the steps we're taking. This knotweed has proved to be very hard to get a handle on as it's taken a number of years longer than we had hoped to eradicate it from the watershed. Based on my reading, it sounds like there's about 18 acres of it scattered throughout the watershed, and my hope is that we don't have to keep renewing this. I appreciate that the pesticide or the sorry, the herbicide that's being used has been studied. And has the study seemed to indicate that it has low impacts? I'm always skeptical of those studies and I would just much rather have the knotweed be gone and eliminate pesticides, herbicides completely from the watershed. I fully support this moving forward and I just hope that in the next couple of years we'll get to a point where we've eradicated knotweed from the Cedar River watershed.
Speaker 2: Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harrow. McCarter, I. O'Brien, I. Okamoto. Rasmussen. I want.
Speaker 1: Bagshot.
Speaker 3: Garden and President Burgess. Nine. In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 38. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Cedar River Municipal Watershed and amending the Secondary Use Policies, adopted by Ordinance 114632, to provide for the limited application of the herbicide Imazapyr to treat invasive knotweed species. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118485 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item 39 Council Bill 118485 relating to the management of the South Fork River Municipal Watershed.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This is almost exactly like the previous bit of legislation, although it applies to the South told River. The ordinance again is designed to authorize force thinning projects. For the ecological benefits, it's a five year contract. Timber revenues again are about $40,000 and would be deposited in the water fund. And the committee recommends that this contract as well be approved. And unanimously it came out of our committee.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harrell McCotter. By O'Brien Okamoto. By Rasmussen Sergeant.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Gordon. I am President Burgess. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 40 through the first semicolon.
Speaker 7: Agenda Item 40 Council Bill 118486 relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights relating to a sewer facility easement. Within a portion of property located at 14027 Lake City, way northeast, as being surplus to the city's utility needs. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the management of the South Fork Tolt River Municipal Watershed; authorizing ecological forest thinning projects in accordance with the South Fork Tolt River Watershed Management Plan in Sections 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 35, Township 26 North, Range 9 East, W.M.; declaring the logs resulting from said projects to be surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of such logs pursuant to applicable City contracting and surplus property sale procedures; and directing use of the proceeds therefrom to fund Plan implementation. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118486 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item 40 Council Bill 118486 relating to Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights relating to a sewer facility easement. Within a portion of property located at 14027 Lake City, way northeast, as being surplus to the city's utility needs.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This legislation authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish rights to an existing easement at the Bella Largo Apartments in Lake City neighborhood and then turns around and authorizes the director to accept a new easement that will be granted from the owner of these apartments. Lake City Investors for a city owned sanitary sewer facility. The property owner will use and develop a new mixed use building for both residential and retail use. The new building will require a larger sanitary sewer connection than the one that currently exists. Hence the reason that we're providing a new easement and the agreement meets the needs of both parties and the legislation passed unanimously out of the committee. And we ask for your support.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And questions or comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Harold Licata. I O'Brien. Okamoto, I Rasmussen. I so want Bagshot Garden. I am President Burgess High nine in favor.
Speaker 2: An unopposed bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report to the full council item one on our agenda please read resolution 31613 Excuse me. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights relating to a sewer facility easement within a portion of property located at 14027 Lake City Way NE as being surplus to the City’s utility needs; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish such easement rights and accept a new easement granted from 14027 Lake City Investors, LLC for a City-owned sanitary sewer facility; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_Res 31607 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report to the full council. Please read item number one.
Speaker 6: The report to the full council agenda. Item number one, resolution 31607. Regarding a voter proposed initiative measure establishing a Public Development Authority PTA to build and operate a mile long elevated park and other amenities along Seattle's waterfront, integrating one block of the existing Alaska Way Viaduct into the design of the elevated park, authorizing the city clerk and the executive director of the Ethics and Election Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative to appear on the August 2nd, 2016 ballot and the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place a proposed initiative on the August 2nd, 2016 election ballot and providing for the publication of such initiative introduced August 17, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As we know, this matter qualified from King County elections by gathering the necessary signatures. In 2012, the City Council passed Resolution 31399, which established the city's support for the Strategic Plan Central Waterfront Concept, Design and Framework Plan and the funding plan for the Waterfront Redevelopment and improvements which rely on the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct as planned by the state. Proponents of Initiative 1 to 3 favor the establishment of a public development authority to build and operate a mile long elevated park and other amenities along Seattle's waterfront. Integrating parts of the existing Alaskan Way Alaskan Way Viaduct into the design of the elevated park and have submitted to the Office of the City Clerk a petition bearing sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure before US Resolution 31607 rejects initiative Measure 123 as being inconsistent with the strategic plan, the Central Waterfront Concept, Design and framework plan, and the funding plan for the Central Waterfront Redevelopment and improvements. This resolution would send this matter to the August two, 2016 election ballot, which is the next regularly scheduled election. I move adoption of resolution 31607. It's moved in seconded. Are there any comments? All in favor of adopting Resolution 31607 Vote I II oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted in this measure, is sent to the August 2016 ballot, and the chair will sign it. The report of the Energy Committee, please read item two.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118479 relating to the City Light Department and amending sections 2.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code to align income eligibility eligibility eligibility guidelines for utility funded emergency low income assistance program with other city rate assistance programs and allow year round program operation. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION regarding a voter-proposed Initiative Measure establishing a public development authority (PDA) to build and operate a mile-long elevated park and other amenities along Seattle’s waterfront, integrating one block of the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct into the design of the elevated park; authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed Initiative to appear on the August 2, 2016 ballot and the local voters' pamphlet; requesting the King County Elections' Director to place the proposed initiative on the August 2, 2016 election ballot; and providing for the publication of such initiative. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CB 118479 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118479 relating to the City Light Department and amending sections 2.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code to align income eligibility eligibility eligibility guidelines for utility funded emergency low income assistance program with other city rate assistance programs and allow year round program operation. The committee recommends a council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member so on.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian Burgess. This council bill will change the eligibility requirements for the Emergency Low Income Assistance Program to make them the same as those used by the utility discount program. And that benchmark is earning 70% or less of the state median income. This change would facilitate two purposes. First, it will make processing applications more efficient because there will be only one set of requirements instead of two. And second, it will end up making more people eligible because the new requirements are more inclusive than the old. The committee unanimously recommends passing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments, Councilmember Beckstrom.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Swan, thanks for working on this. Can you tell me, is this going to be run through Seattle City Light or through Department of Human Services? As of now, through Seattle City Light? And interestingly, sort of in the context of the what you brought up, we've been talking about it, as you know, you and I , about expanding the utility discount program. And one of the points that was made by Seattle City Light is that the more we expand UDP, the less people will be needing this program. So as a matter of fact, the two go hand in hand. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 8: Gordon I.
Speaker 1: Harrow.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 1: O'Brien, I. Okamoto, I. Rasmussen I want my back shop and President Burgess Aden favored and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Finance and Culture Committee. Please read item three.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Finance and Culture Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 118452 authorizing in 2015 acceptance of funding from non city sources authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Planning and Development, Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, Seattle Police Department and the Seattle Public Utilities. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; and amending Section 21.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal code to align income eligibility guidelines for the utility-funded Emergency Low-Income Assistance program with other city rate assistance programs and allow year-round program operation. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CB 118453 | Speaker 6: Agenda item four Council Bill 118453 relating to the 2015 budget amending ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 budget, including the 2015 to 2020 Capital Improvement Program Program. C. I. P.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilmember gotten council bill 118453 is a second quarter supplemental ordinance. This council bill proposes adjustments to the 2015 adopted budget and includes funding for a new labor economist position to coordinate the work of the workforce equity and funding to coordinate performance management. We're very pleased about the fact that the new Labor Economist position will be very good for analyzing the gender wage gap within city department and we urge its passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Council Members one.
Speaker 2: This is the item that's listed number five in the agenda.
Speaker 0: Number four.
Speaker 8: It's number four, but I guess mine says number five.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's related to the previous burglary. But I did.
Speaker 8: I did quote the proper council bill number.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're we're on item number four, which is the capital improvement budget.
Speaker 6: It's because we.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilmember Swan, if you have any questions.
Speaker 2: Yes. I mean, this is just to make clear, this is a supplemental budget appropriations. Yeah, we're talking about. Yes, I'm voting yes, but I just wanted to take a moment to highlight the process that's being used. I mean, this is the summary of the changes to the city's budget that are included in this quarter's supplement. It's a pretty thick booklet, as you can see. I don't know if anyone has had a chance to read through this, but it's 22 pages of summaries. Many of these are small. Some of these are small changes, but many of them are not. They're substantive issues of city priorities. And some of the line items are million dollar changes. I'm not sure how it's possible to have a meaningful discussion about these items when they come as a package like this. And I'm sure that the committee discussed it as much as is possible. But I think that just for a future reference, these issues should be discussed one at a time as they come up not lumped together into one document of 98 different budget actions and extra credit to any of my colleagues who can name three of them without looking, which would be a does not of your memory, but of the fact that this process is so, you know, sort of really omnibus. But even though it should be actually individually discussed. One item I do want to highlight myself is an example of an extremely important item that truly deserves its own discussion. And it reads, This item transfers appropriation authority in the amount of $1.7 million from the litigation expenses of to the police action vehicle. The judgments and settlements are anticipated to exceed the available appropriation in the Police Police Action Vehicle in 2015. Does this mean that the Seattle Police Department expects to have to pay more money in lawsuits this year than in the past? What are the lawsuits or are they excessive force lawsuits? Are they related to free speech issues around Black Lives Matter protests? I think this sort of line item is an example where it's not just it should not just be part of a nine year item summary, but should be a separate discussion. Who is it? Who is accountable for the extra $1.7 million? And even more important, who is accountable for the $1.7 million worth of harm that is done to our communities for which the SBT will face lawsuits? My point is not simply about this packet of budget appropriations. It is generally about how can we structure these discussions to maximize democratic participation of the public in important issues? Again, I am not I am very confident that the Finance Committee has discussed this. This is not to point a finger at them, but just to discuss how we can do this going forward. Given that much of this agenda item funds important city department and programs and contains the logistical changes necessary for routine operations, I will not stand in the way of its passage, but I want to stress that they should have much more democratic participation.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments? Councilmember. So often these items were discussed in detail and there is a central staff memo that summarizes the various changes. The Budget Office and department folks appeared before the committee. I think we had three separate committee.
Speaker 8: Meetings as members.
Speaker 0: And you're certainly welcome to attend those and participate with regard to the Police Action Fund. There's a summary of those cases. It's distributed to council members and you could review those and then ask the law department questions about any of those matters that you're concerned about. Any other questions or comments?
Speaker 4: Councilmember Herold I would just add that the Council has had in place at some point any lawsuit that we settle that's 500,000 or more are required to come to the council for discussion. Many of us in the plaintiffs community talk to plaintiffs lawyers, and we know I've referred many cases actually to people to sue the city. I want sued the city of, well, more than once. And so these discussions are had to make sure that we are accountable. Quite frankly, we are self-insured, self insured as an entity, and many people encourage us to keep us accountable out there in the plaintiffs community. I think Councilman Swann's points are are understood, but hopefully we have the right policies in place to make sure that when we are liable, we are liable. And there are proven cases where we have been liable. And I want to certainly commend the process where these are brought to the council and we've been have had an opportunity to discuss them.
Speaker 0: Please call the roll and the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gordon Harrell.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: O'Brien All right. Okamoto Rasmussen All right. So want I Bagshot and president Burgess eight in favor then oppose the bill.
Speaker 0: Passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2015 Budget; amending Ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 Budget, including the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; creating new appropriations; adding new projects; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2015-2020 CIP; creating both exempt and nonexempt positions; abrogating positions, modifying positions, making cash transfers between various City funds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CB 118412 | Speaker 6: Agenda item five Council Bill 118412. Declaring the property at 339 22nd Avenue East. PMA 156 as surplus to the city's needs, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to sell two parcels through an open and competitive process and designating the disposition of sale proceeds. The Committee recommends the Council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 8: This legislation council bill 118412 was revised by Councilmember Liccardo and the Finance and Culture Committee to direct funding from a property sale to low income housing. This is a surplus property not suitable for housing development, so the proceeds will be directed to low income rental housing, half of those with 60% less medium income, half to those with 30% less annual median income. It is estimated to raise $700,000 towards low income housing. The committee recommends passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 8: Gordon by.
Speaker 1: Harrell O'Brien. Hi, Okamoto. Rasmussen. Right. So want shot. And President Burgess. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please. Rate item six. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE declaring the Property at 339 22nd Avenue East (PMA 156) as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to sell two parcels through an open and competitive process; and designating the disposition of sales proceeds. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CB 118472 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please. Rate item six.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item six. Council Bill 118472. Relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services declaring the vacant property located at 5622 40th Avenue West as surplus to the city's needs, authorizing the sale of said property, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilmember Gordon Counter Bill 118472. This bill allows for the sale of surplus property at 5622 40th Avenue West is a small parcel between two lots. It is too small for development to the adjacent property owner who will be purchasing it for $26,250. The Council. The Committee recommended to passage.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gordon. I Harrell. I O'Brien. II Okamoto.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen. All right. So want a back show and President Burgess eight in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes in the chair will sign it please read item seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, declaring the vacant property located at 5622 40th Avenue West as surplus to the City’s needs; authorizing the sale of said property; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CB 118473 | Speaker 6: Agenda item seven Council Bill 118473. Authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute an amendment extending certain lease agreements between the City of Seattle and KBS. So our Central Building LLC, a Delaware limited liability company for office space, the city leases at 810 Third Avenue and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 8: This council bill allows for the. The extension of a lease agreement for space for the Human Services Department and the Office of Civil Rights Committee urges passage of this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gordon. Hi, Carol. All right. O'Brien. All right. Okamoto. Rasmussen. All right. So want I back? Shall I? And President Burgess eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118474 relating to the North Precinct Project and the Department of Finance and Administrative Services amending ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 budget authorizing the loan of funds from the city's consolidated residual cash pool or its participating participating funds in the amount of 2,750,000 to the 2016 Bond Fund for bridge financing of the | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute an amendment extending certain lease agreements between The City of Seattle and KBS SOR CENTRAL BUILDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, for office space the City leases at 810 Third Avenue; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_CF 313195 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments listed in agenda items 12 and 13 vote. I oppose Vote No. The appointments are confirmed unanimously. The report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 14.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Transportation Committee. Agenda Item 14 Clerk File 313195. The petition of Seattle City Light to vacate Pontious Avenue North between the south margin of John Street and the north margin of Denny Way. The committee recommends the full council grant the petition as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Please read item 15 as well.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 15 Clerk File 314305 Council Concept Approval and waiver or modification of certain development standards to allow development of an electrical substation. The Denny Substation located at 1250 Denny Way Project Number 3014772 Type five. The committee recommends the full council approve the project.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 9: Thank you. The Council is requested to take two separate actions to enable the construction of the City Lights substation at Denny Way. First in item 14. The council is being requested to approve the vacation of Pontious Avenue North between John Street and Denny Way. The second item is item 15, and that would grant the waiver of several land use standards to allow the construction of the substation. This new substation is being built to meet the increased need for reliable electricity in the South Lake Union area. The project includes construction of the substation itself at John Street and Denny Way, and the construction of an underground distribution network that will connect power to the surrounding buildings. And finally, construction of a transmission line from the existing Massachusetts substation in the Sodo neighborhood to the new Denny Way substation. Our street vacation policies provide that vacations may be approved only when they serve the public interest and when a public benefits associated with the project are provided by the petitioner. After several discussions before the Transportation Committee, including a public hearing, the committee has determined that the vacation is in the public interest because vacating a Pontius will allow for construction of the substation in a manner that will include public benefits sought by the neighborhood. And it is supported by our Department of Transportation, which is determined that this portion of Pontiac's Avenue North is a minor street and its closure will not negatively affect the street cred. And then finally, the project does have the support of the adjacent community. Following extensive public involvement with the community to determine what they would like in terms of public benefits. There are nine distinct public benefits associated with the project and their value totals approximately $10 billion. Benefits are listed on page three of the attachment in the Clark file, but to comment on upon several of those are outlined a couple of those several of those there are improved pedestrian crossings that Danny way a 6000 square foot off leash dog park a community meeting room a public art will be provided on site and a new covered bus, shelter and transit hub along Danny way. I'd like to thank Seattle City Light for their work with the community and also to those in the community who have participated in our community meetings and attended the public hearing and work with City Light to develop the public benefits for the project. With regard to the hour, would you like to take action on this proposal to vacate first and then we'll I'll talk about the land use action and we can vote on that separately. Okay. So that's the recommendation of the committee to grant conceptual approval of the vacation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of granting the petition as conditioned vote I.
Speaker 5: By.
Speaker 0: Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the petition is granted as conditioned and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Item 15.
Speaker 9: Thank you. This is the second part of the approval that's being requested of the council now to enable the construction of the Denny Way substation. The project also requires waiver of several land use standards by the Council. This is the first project of its kind in Seattle in 30 years, and when the South Lake Union land use development standards were developed, they weren't done with the construction of an electrical substation in mind. So for that reason, in order to build a substation, there have to be seven land use waivers made by the council. Each waiver was reviewed and discussed twice in the Transportation Committee. And the findings, conclusions and decision statement that's included in your Clark file provides a complete and succinct summary of each of the waivers. Following the committee review and discussion, the committee determined that the requested modifications of development standards are necessary to allow the project to be constructed and the site to effectively function as an electric substation again . The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends approval of this action to grant the land use waivers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? We're voting on item 15. Those in favor of approving the project and granting the modification of development standards. Vote I II. Those oppose Vote No. The motion carries, the project is approved and the chair will sign the findings, conditions and decision of the City Council. Adoption of other resolutions. Please read item 16.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item 16. Resolution 31608. Setting the public hearing on the petition of City Investors for LLC for the vacation of a subterranean portion of the alley and block 89 Denny's Fifth Avenue, fifth addition to North Seattle in the South Lake Union neighborhood of Seattle, according to Chapter three 5.17 Revised Code of Washington. Seattle in this code 15.62 and Clerk's file 313894 Introduced August 17, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 9: This is a routine resolution that establishes September 22nd as a hearing date for the vacation of a requested proposal to vacate a subterranean part of the right of way in the Denny Triangle neighborhood. The alley is in the block where the Denny play field in the South Lake Union Discovery Center allow her now located.
Speaker 0: Do you want to move adoption of the resolution and.
Speaker 9: The I would move adoption of this resolution setting September 22nd as the hearing.
Speaker 0: Date. Second, are there any questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I oppose vote no. The resolution is adopted unanimously and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? The Select Committee on Affordable Housing will meet beginning at 345. 5 minutes from now, the council's adjourned. Thank you. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate Pontius Avenue North between the south margin of John Street and the north margin of Denny Way. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118462 | Speaker 7: Agenda item for council bill 118462 Authorizing the mayor to executed in a local agreement between the city of Seattle, Washington and the North Highline Fire District that outlines the terms and conditions of payments to the North Highline Fire District to mitigate the financial impacts associated with the City of Seattle's annexation of the dual Amish annexation area. The committee recommends a bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is an inner local agreement between the city of Seattle and the North Highline Fire District related to the annexation of the Duwamish Annexation Area, which is made up of the Duwamish Triangle and the sliver by the river adjacent to the South Park Bridge. This Memorandum of agreement has the City of Seattle. If annexation goes forward of that area, to reimburse the North High Line Fire District for one firefighter position to make sure that their crews can be at full strength at all times as they serve the larger north high line area. This Interlocal agreement only goes into effect if the city initiates annexation and if the voters of that area approve the annexation of the dual annexation area. Questions or comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Bagshot Garden II. Harold Licata II O'Brien II. Okamoto, I so want. I am President Burgess II is in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item five.
Speaker 7: Agenda Item five Council Bill 118461 related to the Seattle Preschool Program approving a comprehensive evaluation strategy as required by Resolution 31527. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Seattle, Washington, and the North Highline Fire District that outlines the terms and conditions of payments to the North Highline Fire District to mitigate the financial impacts associated with the City of Seattle’s annexation of the Duwamish Annexation Area. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118461 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item five Council Bill 118461 related to the Seattle Preschool Program approving a comprehensive evaluation strategy as required by Resolution 31527. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is an ordinance adopting the evaluation program for the Seattle Preschool Program. We know that the first 14 classrooms of the Seattle Preschool Program will open next month in early September. And this ordinance establishes the evaluation criteria and the process that will be followed. It's a comprehensive evaluation strategy that includes a detailed plan for ensuring that the Seattle Preschool Program engages in continuous quality improvement, both in relation to program infrastructure and processes, and also in relation to program impacts on a child's readiness for entering kindergarten. The city's Department of Education and Early Learning contracted with third third sector intelligence, a team of independent evaluation experts to conduct the evaluation which will occur over the next four years. The team includes representatives from the University of Washington and National Early Learning experts, including some who have testified before the council over the last couple of years on this topic. High quality preschool can be our strongest tool in reducing the academic achievement gap. And this strategy will help make sure that this program gets off to a good start and remains on the right foot going forward. Questions or comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Bagshot Garden. Hi. Carol. Licata. Hi. O'Brien Hi. Okamoto.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: So what? I am President Burgess. My Agent Faber then opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Please read item six. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the Seattle Preschool Program; approving a Comprehensive Evaluation Strategy as required by Resolution 31527. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118455 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Please read item six.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118455. Relating to gender, gender identity and all gender single occupant restrooms in Seattle amending the definition of gender identity in sections 14.0 4.030 14.0 6.020. 14.0 8.020 and 14.1 0.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code amending the definition of place of Public Accommodation and Section 14.0 6.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, meaning Section 14.0 6.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the right of individuals to use gender specific facilities consistent with their gender identity, and adding a new Chapter 14.07 to the Seattle Municipal Code providing for all gender restrooms in city control buildings and places of public accommodation and prescribing enforcement procedures. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. We've asked Councilmember Godden to lead us through this discussion. She's been running point on this from the committee's perspective. So I'll defer to Councilmember Jean Gordon.
Speaker 0: The member Gorton.
Speaker 1: I am so very pleased today to bring this before the council legislation that will do two things. It will bring Seattle up to national best practices in terms of language that we use around gender diversity. And it will bring all gender restrooms to Seattle to create a more inclusive city. Any single small restroom throughout the city will be required to have an all gender sign. I will note that there is flexibility around the signage so as not to put an unnecessary burden on businesses. Everyone, regardless of gender, deserves the ability to meet their most basic needs. All gender single bathrooms are practical and help ensure everyone has access to a quality life. The small step represents acceptance and freedom for many, and I am so proud. Seattleites are dedicated to pursuing equality and eliminating inequality wherever it exists. And we urge passage of this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Hill.
Speaker 3: I'd like to thank Councilmember Gordon for her leadership on this legislation. I am very proud to support this. I want to thank the LGBTQ community leaders. The commission for not only pushing the issue, but sort of talking about the larger issues and to why. To me, this is much larger than restrooms. I read something that Senator Jamie Peterson wrote about, I think today on in Olympia, his resolution about anti-bullying. I think what this recognized is just a larger conversation about acceptance. I think many of us and I literally mean that many of us grew up at a time where we were teased, we were bullied. We were harassed. And I'm hopeful that our city becomes a city known for its compassion and known for its inclusiveness. So for me, it's a it's a symbol of more than just restrooms. It's a step toward this conversation that is long overdue. And then from a practical standpoint, on the restrooms, one thing I brought up at committee is small restaurants, for example. Sometimes they'll have a fancy picture of one person or one gender and another one. And so maybe the city could do some creative things going down the road to come up with like a sticker or something to make it very easy. So we're going to be creative on how we certainly ease the impact on small businesses. But I'm very proud to support this because it's, again, a part of a larger discussion of inclusiveness that again is long overdue. So I'm very proud to sponsor and help support this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members want.
Speaker 1: Thank you and thank you to all the council members who worked on this. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to vote for gender neutral bathrooms today. I firstly, I think it is important to recognize the tireless work of all the LGBTQ rights activists who struggle and daily responsible for what we are voting on today. Thank you so much. Some of you are sitting here in this room. I really appreciate it. And I also appreciate a lot of the effort by all of you to connect LGBTQ issues to worker issues and pointing out that they are interrelated and fighting for one requires fighting for the other. You all have also helped me organize a town hall earlier this year about ending hate crimes on the LGBTQ community. And after that town hall, we were very happy that the mayor created a task force that many of you were part of, and you've helped push for many important recommendations to make Make Seattle a place that is welcoming and accessible and affordable to LGBTQ people. Gender neutral bathrooms definitely provide a basic level of dignity that all people are have the right to, trans people have the right to, otherwise the rest of us take it for granted. But for the LGBTQ community, it hasn't been provided as a right. And I think that's extremely critical that we restart on that basis. And as Marsha Barger put it very eloquently, we just want to get go, go to the bathroom and do our business. I really appreciate that. I really appreciate the humanity of what you said. And to be able to go to the restroom without facing verbal abuse or worse should be a basic human right for everyone. We also recognize that it's only a small step, and the far bigger demand of the LGBTQ community is to address the whole spectrum of rights of the LGBTQ community, including having a city funded community center that will be a safe place for LGBTQ youth and homeless people to go to. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Berkshire Garden i harrell.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Lakota.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: O'Brien.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Okamoto.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: So want I am president Burgess I Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I know many of you are here for the Select Committee on Affordable Housing. We have four items to go and then we'll be finished. The Report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Please read item seven through the first semicolon. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to gender identity and all-gender single-occupant restrooms in Seattle; amending the definition of “gender identity” in Sections 14.04.030, 14.06.020, 14.08.020, and 14.10.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending the definition of “place of public accommodation” in Section 14.06.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 14.06.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the right of individuals to use gender-specific facilities consistent with their gender identity; and adding a new Chapter 14.07 to the Seattle Municipal Code providing for all-gender restrooms in City-controlled buildings and places of public accommodation and prescribing enforcement procedures. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118460 | Speaker 7: The report of the Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118460 relating to the coordination of regional green business programs. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Okamoto.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'm sorry that title was so long, but the basic part of this, this ordinance is to authorize a interlocal agreement where we can accept money for the regional green program and appropriate money for the program and serve as fiscal agents. This program is one that is a regional program in cooperation with many regional governments, regional utilities, as well as our own utilities, to be more customer and client focused, to help businesses meet their environmental goals and to and to make it easier for them to access services. So with that explanation, it was heard twice in my committee. It was acted last week. And I encourage you all to support this this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank. Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Okamoto, for your work on this. And I want to thank community members who've been working on this for a number of years. Great opportunity to really promote sustainable green business practices, not just in Seattle, but throughout the region. I'm proud that Seattle is going to be taking a leadership role in coordinating that effort for the first four years until it becomes a self-sustaining effort. But I want to thank a bunch of folks, including Charlie Beck there in the audience for ongoing work on this.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Faction by Gordon Harrell. Hi, Lakota. Hi. O'Brien. Hi, Okamoto.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: So once I am President Burgess, I ain't in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight through the first semicolon. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the coordination of regional green business programs; authorizing the Directors of the Office of Economic Development, Seattle Public Utilities, and the Office of Sustainability and Environment, and the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the City Light Department, or their respective designees, to execute a memorandum of agreement between The City of Seattle, King County, by its Department of Natural Resources and Parks, the City of Bellevue, the City of Kirkland, Snohomish County, Puget Sound Energy, and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington to establish a regional green business program that coordinates and provides information about environmental sustainability services offered by all parties to the memorandum of agreement; authorizing the Director of the Office of Economic Development to accept funds under the memorandum of agreement, and appropriating and authorizing the disbursement of such funds in support of the regional green business program; increasing appropriations in the 2015 Adopted Budget for The City of Sea | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118440 | Speaker 7: Agenda item a council bill 118440 relating to the sale of city real property for residential development.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Okamoto.
Speaker 3: Real quickly, this is a city surplus property sale. We get fair market value off of the sale. We've dedicated the proceeds to be used for affordable housing at the lowest level. The developer has committed also to do low income housing, and there's a chance we can get child daycare on site here in the downtown area. It's a very good deal. I want to thank the Office of Housing for negotiating something that's a win win win for all the way around. And I urge my colleagues to support this this council. Bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: All right, Gordon. I Harrell. All right, Licata.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: O'Brien. Hi.
Speaker 3: Okamoto, I.
Speaker 4: Want. I am President Burgess high eight in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Parks Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale of City real property for residential development; authorizing the sale of the site located at 6th Avenue and Yesler Way to Stream Real Estate, LLC; authorizing the Director of Housing to execute, deliver, and administer the contract for sale of land, deed, and related documents; authorizing other actions related to the disposition and use of the property; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118459 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Parks Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item nine.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item nine Council Bill 118459 Relating to the ground lease between the City of Seattle and Experience Music Project authorized under Ordinance 118336 authorizing the Seattle Center director to execute a Second Amendment to the ground lease. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 1: This legislation allows for the amending of the ground lease of the experienced music project. The new lease terms are consistent with the Seattle Center's nonprofit long term lease guidelines. It will bring about great things at the center, including many amazing public benefits for youth in the community, such as music therapy, camp, city of music, career day all day, and the hip hop residency program and the hip hop residency program. Youth are actually compensated for their time learning about art and pursuing their own artistic development instead of having to choose between completing this program and working on a summer job. I really look forward to see what other public benefits the MP will provide in addition to those already offered. The new agreement will also provide many opportunities at the center now and down the road.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call a role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Back shot. I got it. I. I look at it. I. O'Brien. Hi.
Speaker 3: Okamoto, i.
Speaker 4: So what i. And President Burgess in favor and.
Speaker 0: And opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? So we will adjourn now at 846 and we will reconvene in 5 minutes as the Select Committee on Affordable Housing.
Speaker 5: Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the ground lease between The City of Seattle and Experience Music Project authorized under Ordinance 118336; authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute a second amendment to the ground lease. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272015_Res 31599 | Speaker 0: Please read item three.
Speaker 3: Agenda item three. Resolution 31599. Identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2016 and requesting that the Department of Planning and Development and the Seattle Planning Commission Review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So just a quick reminder of where this is in the process. We state law allows cities to amend their comprehensive plan once a year. The city's process for doing that begins a year before the amendment comes up, where we solicit ideas on amendments that should be made to the comprehensive plan. For 2015, we have not done our comprehensive plan amendments. Those will likely come closer to the end of this year. But we're also preparing for 2016 compliant amendments, and this is the docket darkening process we do in 2015 to identify which ideas we want to advance. There were a number of ideas for comp plan amendments that were submitted by departments or by the public. They were vetted by Department of Planning and Development. The Planning Commission independently reviews those submittals, as does our own central staff. There were a number that were recommended not for moving forward at this time for various reasons. The ones before us on this legislation were recommended by the Department of Planning Development, the Planning Commission and Central Staff, with the exception of one that the Planning Commission had recommended not moving forward. But in committee we discussed that and said we think it's appropriate to move forward because of work that's happening around Seattle 2035 in that easy process. None of the items on here is it's a foregone conclusion that we will actually do anything in the comp plan next year. It simply states that we would like to continue to do research between now and next year so that we are informed we can make a policy decision next year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting resolution 31599 vote I. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. The report of the Energy Committee. Please read item four. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION identifying proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2016; and requesting that the Department of Planning and Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272015_CB 118423 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting resolution 31599 vote I. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. The report of the Energy Committee. Please read item four.
Speaker 3: The report of the Energy Committee agenda item for Council Bill number 118423 relating to the city light department declaring certain real property rights surplus to utility needs. Authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement for the city to grant an easement for parking and access purposes over a portion of the city's city fee owned Parcel Canal Transmission Corridor at 175244 Avenue North in the city of Shoreline. Washington accepting payment for the true and full value of the easement from CW, Shoreline LLC and Shoreline LLC and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends that Council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member so on.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Burgess. This council approves an easement for parking and access over a transmission corridor in Shoreline City. Light will get half a million dollars for this easement. The Energy Committee held the legally required public hearing for this council bill and there were no comments made. The Energy Committee recommends passage of this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Okamoto. I Rasmussen Swan. I Bagshaw High. Gordon Harrell.
Speaker 2: Licata II.
Speaker 3: O'Brien. President Burgess. Nine In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring certain real property rights surplus to utility needs; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement for the City to grant an easement for parking and access purposes over a portion of the City’s fee-owned Bothell-Canal Transmission Corridor at 17524 Aurora Avenue North in the City of Shoreline, Washington; accepting payment for the true and full value of the easement from GCW Shoreline, LLC, and WG @ Shoreline, LLC; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272015_CB 118443 | Speaker 3: Thank you. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118443. Relating to the rates, terms and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the satellite department to customers in the city of SeaTac and amending SeaTac.
Speaker 0: Thank you Councilmember. So on trying to help you out there. Yes.
Speaker 6: This item also accompanies item number nine. I will go ahead and speak to vote. So I'm speaking to item number seven and nine. City Light has negotiated the new franchise agreement with the City of SeaTac. These are 15 year agreements and you may have noticed that they have all been expiring and have been renegotiated recently. There's a standard agreement and this is similar to those standard agreements. There's one thing that's notable. There's something called a consideration payment, which can either be 4% or 6%. This is a fee that is assessed to the customers in that area. In this case, the customer is SeaTac. And satellite ads that feed and then hand that revenue over to the city similar to a tax. It has no impact on other customers outside the city. When Sea-Tac renegotiated their franchise agreement, they elected to switch from the 4% consideration payment to a 6% consideration payment. And that's why there are two kinds of those. This one adopts the new rates with the consideration payment, and item number nine will adopt a franchise agreement as a whole. And I just wanted to note that as I have advocated here in Seattle, I think the city of sea dogs should alter how they do rate to lessen the burden on working families. However, this is what Sea Deck has negotiated, so the Energy Committee unanimously recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Okamoto. Rasmussen I so want I back shot Goran I Harrill I look Carter I O'Brien and President Burgess nine in favor and nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And I have just signed the oil train resolution with the extra comma removed. Thank you. Councilmember Okamoto, please read item eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the rates, terms and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department to customers in the city of SeaTac; and amending Sections 21.49.020, 21.49.030, 21.49.040, 21.49.052, 21.49.055, 21.49.057, 21.49.081, and 21.49.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code to implement new rates for the city of SeaTac that reflect the terms of the 2015 franchise agreement. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272015_CB 118444 | Speaker 3: Agenda item eight Council Bill 118444. An ordinance related to the City Light Department authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute a Reliability Coordinator Funding Agreement with Pink Reliability Peak Reliability Inc. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember someone.
Speaker 6: This Council approves the contract with the nonprofit organization that regulates the transmission lines for all the utilities on the West Coast. They make sure that as utilities buy and sell electricity, no transmission lines are overloaded and that that network works smoothly. The Energy Committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Okamoto Hi. Rasmussen All right. So want I back? Shall I? Gordon I. Harrill Lakota I O'Brien and President Burgess now in a favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the City Light Department; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute a Reliability Coordinator Funding Agreement with Peak Reliability, Inc. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07272015_Res 31606 | Speaker 3: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31606 Endorsing the goals of the Committee to End Homelessness in King County Strategic Plan and stating the intent of the City of Seattle to work with other organizations and governmental entities in the implementation of this plan. Introduced July 27, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Okamoto.
Speaker 7: Thank, President Burgess. We were briefed this morning in a full council briefing about the strategic plan. For those that are unfamiliar with us, this is a ten year plan. Second of a ten year plan, the city, along with other regional partners, worked very hard to look at new strategies to end homelessness, especially in light of the fact that the last ten years, despite our best efforts, homelessness continues to to haunt us and the numbers continue to grow. So in that, a new strategy was developed by the regional partners adopted in a plan. The plan puts more emphasis on preventative measures and proven research based methods. The strategy is well aligned with our own previous council actions to encourage shelters throughout the region and our own Seattle Human Services Department's Homeless Investment Strategy. While there's much more work to do, including the adoption and movement on the health recommendations, this is a good step in the right direction and encouraged the council to to move on this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Those in favor of adopting resolution 31606 vote i. I. Excuse me. I should have moved it up that first. Little technical glitch here. Well, we'll recover. I move to adopt resolution 31606. It's moved in second. The resolution be adopted. Those in favor. Vote I. I oppose. Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted, and the chair will sign it. Well, now move to other business and consider an administrative appeal of an exclusion order. The City Council will now consider an administrative appeal of an exclusion order issued to Alex Zimmerman on July 20, 2015 . The question before the council is whether or not this exclusion should be sustained. On March 17, 2014, Mr. Zimmerman was excluded from the city council and committee meetings for a period of 28 days. That exclusion was based on multiple instances of disruptive behavior, including interrupting citizen testimony during public comment periods and shouting from the audience when not recognized for public comment. On September 22, 2014, Mr. Zimmerman was excluded from city council and committee meetings for a period of 28 days. That exclusion was based on repeated use of vulgar and offensive language, unrelated to topics on the agenda of the particular meeting and outbursts. While sitting in the audience. On June one, 2015, Mr. Zimmerman received a written warning regarding his behavior in violation of council rules, including, among other things, his failure to speak about items on the agenda of a particular meeting and interference with other audience members. Over the course of multiple recent council and committee meetings, Mr. Zimmerman has used his public comment period to shout strings of obscenities completely unrelated to any matter on the agenda for a particular meeting. This behavior occurred on July 13, 2015 for council meeting the July 14, 2015 Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhood Committee meeting. The July 14, 2015 Transportation Committee. And the July 15, 2015 Education and Governance Committee. Mr. Zimmerman's behavior constitutes repeated violations of the council rules and procedures that prohibit disruptive behavior. Specifically, Section 3d1c, which requires that comment be related to topics on the agenda so that a meeting may proceed efficiently. Mr. Zimmerman has filed a written appeal of his latest exclusion. Each council member has been provided a copy of the exclusion of the exclusion letter and his written appeal. Are there any questions or comments from council members? The question before us is should the decision to exclude Mr. Zimmerman from council meetings from a period of 28 days be sustained? Those in favor of sustaining the exclusion vote. I. I. Those opposed to the sustaining the exclusion vote. No. The motion carries and the exclusion remains in effect. Is there any other business to come before us? Immediately following this meeting. Councilmember Gordon, do you want to begin in 5 minutes or 10 minutes?
Speaker 4: How about we'll make it 10 minutes?
Speaker 0: Okay. So at three at 3:00, the Select Committee on the Waterfront will convene in chambers. We are adjourned. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION endorsing the goals of the Committee to End Homelessness in King County Strategic Plan; and stating the intent of The City of Seattle to work with other organizations and governmental entities in the implementation of this plan. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202015_CB 118439 | Speaker 7: The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118439. Relating to the Technology Matching Fund program, making allocations and authorizing implementation of certain technology matching fund projects in 2015. Providing that 2015 appropriations for the Technology Matching Fund from the cable to television franchise sub fund and from the Information Technology Fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2016 fiscal year, allowing that any unspent funds from an individual project may be applied to another technology matching fund project and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends a council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. It doesn't feel very good. I'm getting ready. Present three piece of legislation in a room clears. But this is very important. What we're getting ready to do. This council bill 118439 basically authorizes the disbursement of $470,000 to 22 organizations for the purpose of increasing technology, access and literacy, encouraging broadband adoption, civic engagement through technology and supporting education, workforce skills and training. And what basically this means is that we are now investing in underrepresented communities to make sure that they become digital literate and they are able to work with we're able to work with children, seniors, underrepresented communities, and we are investing in our technology matching fund program. This particular year was exciting because we had an additional $150,000 that was enabled through the receipt of grant funds providing from the Washington State Department of Commerce in 2014. So we'd like to thank that department for assisting us. This particular project, this particular year will assist over 15,000 residents and help further digital inclusion for all. And half of this year's projects are new provider organizations, meaning that the other half have been doing work with us and we're successful in another grant. So very excited about these projects. A little more context. Seven projects are located in low income or traditional transitional housing facilities, helping residents gain life skills and self-sufficiency. Ten projects will provide technology training for youth through science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM programs and digital media programs. Again, these projects will serve more than 1350 immigrants and refugees. Shannon described just a couple of projects if I can cherry pick a few. One is called the big Brained Superheroes Club. I like that because they had the coolest name, the Big Brain Superheroes Club. And this one provides a science, technology and engineering math program for youth from yes, for carers from the ages eight and up. And they'll will introduce big brain binary counter to people throughout the city. So that's a really a cool program. Another one is a coalition for refugees from Burma. And in this program we're purchasing new laptops and providing basic computer literacy courses for newly arrived refugee adults and conducting trainings for parents of school age youth to support their children's education. Another one is the East African Community Services, where we're establishing a computer lab at the youth building and the new Harley campus to offer robotics in college and career readiness. And so so again, between 1998 and 2014, this technology matching fund that this council and the executive have worked together through our franchise fees has awarded close to 3.5 million for 270 projects. So I want to thank the great members of the Community Technology Advisory Board for doing this. And these are all volunteers doing such a robust job on making sure they're reviewing all of the applications and really making sure that we have fairness in the process. And we're touching all communities. We ask the full council to support the passage of this great bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Hi.
Speaker 1: Okamoto.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen. Hi, Sergeant. I beg your pardon? I Harrill All.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 7: Lakota and President Ferguson. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I know that many of you are here for the Select Committee on Affordable Housing. That committee will meet when this council meeting is over. Please read item three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Technology Matching Fund Program; making allocations and authorizing implementation of certain Technology Matching Fund projects in 2015; providing that 2015 appropriations for the Technology Matching Fund from the Cable Television Franchise Subfund and from the Information Technology Fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2016 fiscal year; allowing that any unspent funds from an individual project may be applied to another Technology Matching Fund project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202015_Res 31598 | Speaker 7: Agenda item three. Resolution 31598. Affirming the human right to privacy and expressing a desire that the policies and products of the Cities Privacy Initiative be consistent with the right to privacy, as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the applicable international human rights framework. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Burgess. So this resolution affirms the human right to privacy as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and expressed and expresses the City Council's desire that any policies or products of the Privacy Initiative be consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Privacy. Now, let me describe a little bit about about that conceptual framework. So you know what I'm talking about. I don't assume that all of you have read the Declaration of Human Rights, quote, No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his or her privacy, family harm or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his or her honor and reputation. Everyone has a right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. And the reason why this policy work becomes critically important is because, you know, we as a as a city come into contact with a lot of personal information through our surveillance, through the bills that you pay, through your interface with the city . And how we treat that information on our private citizens becomes critically important. And we formed an internal departmental team on looking at what we do with this information. So we thought as a committee and as a council that it was prudent to look at the universal laws, the declarations. The policy statement said, in fact, this country has adopted to be the sort of the framework on how we move forward. A little background on what we're trying to do with privacy. In 2012, we adopted Resolution 31420, which proclaims the Seattle to be a human rights city. And we endorsed human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You should know that many major cities in this country have not adopted this. We are one of these cities that have adopted this. In 2014, we began a privacy initiative, and this is intended to strengthen the city's privacy practice and again, in how we treat your sensitive and personal and private information. In February of 2015, we passed Resolution 31570, adopting six privacy principles, guiding the actions that the city will take when collecting and using information from the public. And on August 2015, in the future, we will report back on the privacy statement, the privacy tool kit, which will establish actionable privacy standards to enable our departments to comply with our privacy principles. So to many, this becomes critically, critically important as we move forward as a city and as the advances of technology gives the government access to technology that decades ago people would not even imagine. I'd like to thank the Seattle Human Rights Commission and the Seattle Privacy Coalition. We incorporated much of their feedback into these policy statements. The committee recommends full adoption of this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Council members. I want to.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember her, for your comments. I support the human right to privacy and will be voting yes on this resolution to affirm that. I think we should also follow up on this resolution by taking concrete steps to actually protect the privacy of Seattleites. A couple of times a year, the council votes on supplemental budgets that accept federal money from the Department of Homeland Security and to fund so-called fusion centers in Seattle. According to new documents leaked by Edward Snowden. These fusion centers are used just to help the NSA spy on every man, woman and child in Seattle and in the country. So I will vote yes on this resolution, and I will encourage my colleagues to join me in putting this resolution into practice and voting against funding the fusion centers. The next supplemental budget. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Other comments? All in favor of adopting resolution 31598 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read item for. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming the human right to privacy and expressing a desire that the policies and products of the City’s privacy initiative be consistent with the right to privacy as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the applicable international human rights framework. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202015_CB 118430 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of placing the report on file vote. I oppose vote no. The motion passes the report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item five.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 118430 relating to the Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation Project authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept and record on behalf of the City of Seattle. A deed for street purposes for a portion of lot one block five Seattle suburban home tracks from D.v.m. Investments, LLC, a Washington limited liability company authorizing the director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept and record on behalf of the City of Seattle. A deed for street purposes for a portion of lots. One BLOCK six Seattle suburban home tracts from Windsor Park Estates, Lake City, LLC, a Washington limited liability company placing the real property conveyed by such deeds under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation and Design, and designating the property for street purposes, purposes, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 3: Thank you to many of our intersections. Either have no wheelchair ramps are the ones that we do have in place are inadequate or they're very damaged or they do not meet ADA standards. The Department of Transportation is now carrying out a sidewalk improvement project at 145th and Lake City Way. And in order to make a fully compliant wheelchair ramp intersection, they have to purchase small parcels of property from adjacent private property owners. This legislation authorizes a purchase purchase of these small purchases of property to fully complete the intersection with ADA compliant wheelchair ramps. And the committee recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Hi, Okamoto.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen. Hi, Suzanne. I beg your pardon. I Harrill. I Lakota. I am President Burgess, my and favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: To bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Oops, we did that already. We're off the hook on that. That's good. Finally, item item number seven, please read item number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation project; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of the City of Seattle, a deed for street purposes for a portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Seattle Suburban Home Tracts, from DVM Investments LLC, a Washington limited liability company; authorizing the Director of the Department of Transportation to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of the City of Seattle, a deed for street purposes for a portion of Lots 1, Block 6, Seattle Suburban Home Tracts, from Windsor Park Estates Lake City, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; placing the real property conveyed by such deeds under the jurisdiction of the Seattle Department of Transportation and designating the property for street purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07202015_Res 31601 | Speaker 0: To bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Oops, we did that already. We're off the hook on that. That's good. Finally, item item number seven, please read item number seven.
Speaker 7: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda item seven Resolution 31601 regarding a voter proposed initiative measure concerning participation in government, including creation of a publicly financed election campaign program and regulation of campaign donations and lobbying. Authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative to appear on the November 3rd, 2015 ballot and the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place the proposed initiative on November 3rd, 2015 election ballot providing for the publication of such initiative and repealing Resolution 31600 introduced July 20th, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is basically repeating an action we took last week to send the Honest Elections Initiative to the November ballot. The clerks discovered a minor error in the title of that resolution last week. So that's been corrected and we're repeating the action. This will have no effect materially. The initiative will still appear on the November election ballot. Are there any questions or comments? All those in favor of adopting Resolution 31601 vote? I opposed Vote No go. The resolution is adopted eight in favor, one opposed. Is there any other business to come before the city council? Yes. Councilmember Rasmussen, thank you.
Speaker 3: I request to be excused from the council meetings on August the third and August the 10th.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: It's moved in. Second under Councilmember Rasmussen. Be excused August three and August ten. All in favor. Vote I oppose. Vote no. You are excused. Any other business? Councilmember O'Brien. It's 10 minutes to three. What time would you like to start? The select committee was started. 255, if that's all right. Okay, so you can all start your watches. We get 4 minutes. 255, 5 minutes, 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 4 minutes. So the city council will be adjourned and we will reconvene as the Select Committee on Affordable Housing in 4 minutes. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION regarding a voter-proposed Initiative Measure concerning public participation in government, including creation of a publicly-financed election campaign program and regulation of campaign donations and lobbying; authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed Initiative to appear on the November 3, 2015 election ballot and the local voters' pamphlet; requesting the King County Elections' Director to place the proposed initiative on the November 3, 2015 election ballot; providing for the publication of such initiative; and repealing Resolution 31600. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132015_CB 118425 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign at the report of the planning land use and Sustainability Committee. Please read. Excuse me, this is the Energy Committee. Please read item six.
Speaker 9: The report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118425 relating to the City Light Department approving a 15 year franchise to construct, operate, maintain, replace and repair an electrical light and power system in a crossover along, under, through and below certain designated public rights of way in the city of Lake Forest Park. The committee recommends a council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Salmon.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This bill will approve the newly negotiated 15 year franchise agreement between Seattle, Adelaide and Lake Forest Park. City lights out electricity to other municipalities and neighborhoods outside the city limits. And when it does the terms as specified in the franchise agreements like this one, the Energy Committee recommends that the Council pass this bill.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: McCarter, i. O'Brien Okamoto.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen. I so want I back show Gordon Harrell I am president Burgess nine and favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Finance and Culture Committee. Please read item seven, eight and nine. Well, we'll take them one at a time. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; approving a 15-year franchise to construct, operate, maintain, replace, and repair an electrical light and power system in, across, over, along, under, through, and below certain designated public rights-of-way in the City of Lake Forest Park. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132015_CB 118428 | Speaker 9: confirming certain prior acts all by a three quarter vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Agenda Item eight Council Bill 118420 related to business licenses. Amending Sections 5.30.030 and .060. 5.32.150. 5.40.060 and .080 and .0855.45110. 5.55030040220 and 230 of the Seattle Municipal Code. And adding a new section 5.55.238 to the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends a bill pass and agenda item nine Resolution 31595 concerning the creation of enforcement priorities for city departments regarding non-state licensed marijuana establishments. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Licata.
Speaker 6: We will be dealing with each of these bills separately. So the first bill we will be voting on and I'll be describing is the Council Bill 11 8419 and this is a bill that will amend the ordinance 12 4648 which is adopted in a 2015 budget. The purpose of this bill is to recognize that initiative 692, which created the Medical Use of Marijuana Act we've introduced and U.S.A. created a situation that has presented some challenges for us here in Seattle. It was followed by Initiative 502, and that was driven partly by a desire to end criminalization of marijuana production, processing and distribution. Whereas the initiative preceding that 682 was regarding trying to guarantee access to medical marijuana for people who needed that treatment. So what we have now in Seattle is we have 14 recreational marijuana retail stores, and they have been opened as of June 2nd, 2015 of this month. On the other hand, regarding the medical marijuana dispensaries, we have 99 that were operating without licenses issued by the Liquor Cannabis Board in the city of Seattle currently. Of those, 54 retailers were without state licenses and establish operations in the city since January 1st of 2013. And that's an important date because 2013 is the cutoff date. So what we have now before us is regulations that basically say that marijuana business licenses are limited to those persons who have been issued a license by the Washington State Liquor Cannabis Board to produce, process, distribute or transport marijuana or medical products. The those persons operating medical marijuana businesses before January 1st, 2013, may continue to operate until July 1st, 2016, as long as they meet certain conditions which are outlined in another piece of legislation, the resolution. The bill here identifies a number of conditions that relate to the license. To the license. The license will be $1,000. And then the same for those businesses located in Seattle. It's $500 for those located outside the city. The legislation was written up in conjunction with several city staff myself, the mayor's office, as well as individuals involved in both the recreational and marijuana industry now. We naming those individuals after we go through all three bills. So open for questions on this particular bill.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments? I would just say. Councilmember Lakota, thank you for your good stewardship of this legislation through the process. I know it's been very complicated, but I think we've arrived at a good place. Thank you. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: McCarter by O'Brien Okamoto. I Rasmussen I so want.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Back to my garden. I Harrell. I am president Burgess nine and favorite and opposed the.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Item number eight.
Speaker 6: This is Council Bill 11 8420. This legislation allows our affairs or financial administrative services to have guidelines for regulating the marijuana businesses. It. This creates a situation where we define a number of terms and also allow some guidance to those in the marijuana business. So allows for determining when. The FAA will have to basically contact those businesses. This is an ordinance and the resolution which will follow. It goes into the actual priorities for enforcement, which will eventually be followed by either further other legislation or directors rules.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: McCarter I.
Speaker 2: O'Brien I. Okamoto.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen, I so want.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Facture I got.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Harrill I am president Burgess high nine in favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Item nine the resolution.
Speaker 6: This is a resolution. It's numbered 3159 five. And this creates a enforcement priorities for city departments regarding non state licensed marijuana establishments and in creating the enforcement. The City Council mayor requested the Finance Administrative Services and the Department of Planning Development, Seattle Police Department and the City Attorney's Office work cooperatively to identify and develop enforcement procedures against non state licensed marijuana businesses according to the following levels of priority. I'm not going to go through this in detail, but I will give you an idea of some of the elements that fall into these three tiers. The highest priority this means the highest priority for basically enforcement will be those individuals or entities that are providing marijuana products to those under the age of 21. Also, any enterprise that is providing delivery services for recreational marijuana. And the third element is those who are under law enforcement investigation for criminal violations. And another is operating a business license issued by the city of Seattle after January 1st of 25th, 2013. The second highest priority is violation of building construction, land use, fire, other city codes. And the third, which is the third highest but actually the lowest priority for enforcement, are those basically involved with not having a state license after January 1st, 2013. But there is an exception clause, which I won't go into, but it has to do with ownership, prior ownership of a portion of that business and then also those that have not undergone quality assurance testing. This is a critical element to make sure that individuals who are acquiring marijuana products are assured of having a safe product. And then the last well, one of the last is a medical marijuana establishment located within 500 feet of another state license or non-licensed marijuana establishment. Again, this was worked out with May the stakeholders.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments. I'd point out that this resolution provides enforcement guidance, but in the event the city attorney or the police department feel that it's necessary to take actions to preserve public safety, there's nothing that prohibits that from from occurring. All in favor of adopting Resolution 31595 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Councilmember McCotter, did you want to share some closing comments?
Speaker 6: I did. Thank you. As Council President Burgess pointed out, there have been a lot of individuals paying a lot of time through this. I want to thank Mayor Murray in particular for having worked with the city council. We held a number of, I would say, workshops with many representatives of the industry and the large industry and growing . So we didn't get everybody at the table, but there were a number of people there particular. I want to note, David Mendoza, the mayor of staff, has been very, very helpful as well as Kato Freeman for our central staff who have really been doing a lot of the footwork and actually the brain work of figuring out how to mix all of these various items. Then I also want to identify a number of people in the industry who've been engaged, not simply representing their own clients interests, but also their own personal interests, but also understanding the larger picture and understanding that Seattle is at the forefront and we need to do it in the right way . And that would be Philip, Dottie, John, David, Ryan Day, Alex Cooley, Tim Hatley, Sandeep Kaushik for all their involvement and support. And and then of course, the many recreational medical advocates for their work and support as well. And I want for my staff as well. They've we've had several different staff members working on this, but these are Herbold and new owners who have also been working quite a bit on this.
Speaker 0: And thanks also to the city attorney, Pete Holmes and his staff. You've been involved in this issue from way back at the beginning before the state even acted. So thank you.
Speaker 6: How embarrassing. I didn't mention here.
Speaker 0: I covered for you. Thank you. Item ten, please read item ten.
Speaker 9: Agenda item ten. Council Bill 118428. Providing the Office of City Auditor Independent Audit Authority, including access to employer records after a case is closed by the Seattle Office for Civil Rights. In order to evaluate Seattle Office of Civil Rights Enforcement efforts of Chapter 14.16, 14.17, 14.19 and .20 of the Seattle Municipal Code amending sections 3.40.040, 14.1 6.060 and 14.20 .050 of the Seattle Municipal Code and creating a new section 14.1 9.065 of the Seattle Invisible Code. The committee recommends a bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 6: This ordinance implements a recommendation of the Office of City Auditor to provide them with authority to audit employer compliance with the city's four labor standard laws. To evaluate the enforcement efforts of the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Labor Standards. So again, this is a check on our own parts of the city government and all departments and offices. It is not designed to basically present a situation of double jeopardy for businesses and the for labor standard laws that they will be looking at to determine whether the city has been adequately enforcing them of the paid sick and safe leave. Minimum wage. Job Assistance and administrative wage theft. Glad to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Okamoto I just have a question about extending this authority over and private employee records and privacy issues. How that's handled.
Speaker 6: They will make a request and the expectation is that they will be accepted if they are not allowed access. At this point, we haven't determined how they respond. It may be that there are enough cases to look at that we'll just move on. We will be noting what types of objections are raised, how often it occurs, and that may allow us then to bring it back to here to make additional policy decisions on how to pursue those.
Speaker 0: Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Look, Carter, I O'Brien. Hi, Okamoto. I Rasmussen. I so want.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Back show Gordon. I Harrill. I am President Burgess nine and favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The Report of the Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item 11. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE providing the Office of City Auditor independent audit authority, including access to employer records, after a case is closed by the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) in order to evaluate SOCR’s enforcement efforts of Chapters 14.16, 14.17, 14.19, and 14.20 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); amending Sections 3.40.040, 14.16.060, and 14.20.050 of the SMC; and creating a new Section 14.19.065 of the SMC. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132015_Res 31588 | Speaker 9: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31588 Supporting Executive Order 2015 Dash zero two Workforce Equity Initiative, which addresses gender and race, ethnic wage equity for city employees, and requesting the development of metrics and reporting processes to track the achievement of objectives listed in the executive order. The Committee recommends a resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 3: This resolution supports Executive Order 20 1502. Workforce Equity Initiative and addresses gender and race wage equity for all city employees. This resolution requests the development of metrics and reporting processes to track how this initiative is progressing. As an example, the items in the initiative is the recently announced gender neutral signage for single stall bathrooms at the city . The initiative on the gender neutral signage will be before the Public Safety Committee Wednesday afternoon. The next committee report on the Gender Equity Initiative is expected in July 2016. The committee recommends passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All those in favor of adopting resolution 31588 vote I. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read item 12. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting Executive Order 2015-02: Workforce Equity Initiative, which addresses gender and race/ethnic wage equity for City employees; and requesting the development of metrics and reporting processes to track the achievement of objectives listed in the Executive Order. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07132015_CB 118411 | Speaker 9: The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 118411 related to cable television authorizing the mayor has designated enter into a new cable television franchise agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits with Quest Broadband Services Inc DBA CenturyLink authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the new franchise. Increasing appropriations in the 2015 Budget of the Department of Information Technology for costs incurred in processing the franchise application and transferring cash received for processing the franchise application all by a three quarter vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So this legislation basically grants a cable television franchise to Quest's broadband services, doing business as CenturyLink. And the last time a cable franchise was actually negotiated and executed is in 2006. In the term of this franchise is ten years. And so what should occur after this approval is CenturyLink will either build, overbuild and upgrade its network to close to 100,000 households or more. In Seattle, the city negotiated a franchise agreement that basically will bring about a new fiber broadband provider to the service to the city and receive substantial public benefits that will help the community. And let's talk a little about those public benefits. And I also want to acknowledge Mike, Matt, Matt Miller and your team for negotiating this deal as anticipated by the new cable code changes passed earlier this year, CenturyLink will again be another competitor in our market. They will mean we will maintain our franchise fee revenue that, you may recall, will be about 4.4% franchise fee on cable television, television revenue and about $0.12 per prescriber per month. And this is consistent with other income and providers. Now that's revenue we use for our technology matching funds. I talked about during the briefing making sure that underrepresented communities, seniors, other lower income individuals have access to technology. And so that's an incredible public benefit. We also this particular channel we're televised on as an example, Seattle Channel and other public educational and governmental programs are are paid for by this this income stream. And of course, we have a guarantee that discounted pricing will be for lower income households and seniors. During these many discussions we had during this legislation, we I'll just quote a portion of the code that says a significant portion of the total households to which a cable operator offers cable service shall be households that fall below the median income level as measured by a census block group. Data. And the reason why that's critical is we don't we do not want a provider coming in here in sort of cream skimming on certain affluent neighborhoods and neglecting our lower income neighborhoods. And we have asked the director to establish a rule to respond to the council's policy direction, to make sure that we we meet underrepresented communities. And as this rule develops, a definition has occurred in that a significant, significant portion, we are saying, is not less than 30% of the total households and the cable operator operators service area . So we're actually putting math behind our commitment to the lower income areas that we want to serve as we continue to examine the feasibility of a municipal broadband network and a lot of attention and discussions around that, we have been trying to pass legislation to change basically outdated rules and regulations to open up the market. To incentivize competition, which is great for the consumers. Better service, lower prices. Just by way of context, in 2012, you may remember that we passed legislation to open up our excess capacity of our own fiber optic cable network that provides high speed Internet services. In 2014, we made several changes to the historical administrative code, allowing making it easier for providers to enter the market and remove some of the historical barriers. And through that, we've been able to reach neighborhoods that we were not able to reach before. And then in 2015, we modernized the cable television franchise code, basically allowing more competition and eliminating the concept of franchised districts. We believe that that was an outdated method by which we do business, and this again, would encourage competition. So I think we're heading into to a good direction. Our policy is intact. I'm trying to make sure we serve all communities and realize the benefits of having this kind this this kind of competition for our consumers. The committee recommends passage of this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Lakota.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 2: Brian Okamoto.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen. I so want.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Picture. Hi Gordon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Harrell. I am president Burgess nine in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 6: Yes. Like be excused August 17th.
Speaker 0: Of August of July. I mean, July 17.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. This is I think it's, um, we're looking at August.
Speaker 0: August 17. Yes. Okay. It's a second. All in favor of excusing Councilmember Lakota on August 17. Vote i. I. Opposed. Vote no. You have lots of friends.
Speaker 6: You almost always have me choosing a wrong date.
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure. Any other business. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or his designee to enter into a new Cable Television Franchise Agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits with Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink; authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the new franchise; increasing appropriations in the 2015 budget of the Department of Information Technology for costs incurred in processing the franchise application; and transferring cash received for processing the franchise application; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06292015_CB 118421 | Speaker 5: The report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item to Council Bill 118421 Granting SDC Creative LLC permission to maintain and operate its Great SkyBridge over and across South Orchid Street, east of Fifth Avenue, south for a ten year term, renewable 4 to 2 successive ten year terms specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted, providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends a bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is a new term permit for an existing SkyBridge at the Seattle Design Center in the Georgetown neighborhood. The SkyBridge is over South Orchid Street, just east of Fifth Avenue South. It was last authorized by ordinance in 1982, and the term permit is for ten years with a renewable option of 210 year terms. The public benefits that are required, in addition to paying an annual fee of $4,000, include tree replacement and enhanced landscaping on South Orca Street installed it wayfinding will have to be improved and installed and neighborhood signs will have to be placed in the area. And then a new bike rack will also be required to be installed and the committee recommends approval.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Gordon High.
Speaker 2: Peril. The Carter I. O'Brien. I press myself. I want I lecture. I am President Burgess agent favorite and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting SDC Creative LLC permission to maintain and operate a skybridge over and across South Orcas Street, east of 5th Avenue South, for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06292015_CB 118399 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item for Council Bill 118399 relating to the City Light Department granting authority to accept and execute revenue and funding source agreements to support the operation and services of the lighting design lab and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember one.
Speaker 0: Thank you, President Burgess. The Lighting Design Lab is an environmental project of Seattle City Life to promote the use of energy efficient lighting. They periodically accept grants in order to help finance their work, and every time they accept such a grant, they need council approval. And this ordinance would give city light the authority to accept those grants without a council in every instance. And the Energy Committee unanimously recommends that the Council pass this bill.
Speaker 1: Questions or comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gordon Harrell.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: O'Brien. Rasmussen.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 2: So aren't.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Back I and President Burgess eight in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee. Please read item five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; granting authority to accept and execute revenue and funding source agreements to support the operation and services of the Lighting Design Lab; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06222015_Res 31591 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Agenda Item one Resolution 31591. Recognizing the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom flag as a symbol for Seattle Vietnamese community. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Council President Burgess. Good afternoon and thank you for being here. Chow Kam on my neue da dum de. I took me about an hour to learn those eight words. So I could only imagine the stories that you have coming here to this foreign country with sometimes little more than the clothes on your back , learning a new language and a new culture. And I think that's why we're here this afternoon. And I don't have to say a lot about this resolution, because you said it all. You are a magnificent community and your stories and your words said it all. I will share with my colleagues a few statistics to put what we're doing here. Know, I think in the appropriate context. So Seattle is home to more than 10,000 Vietnamese Americans and the state of Washington is home to more than 70,000 Vietnamese Americans. Indeed, a very rich, vibrant community, the business district that is Seattle's Little Saigon has been the economic and social social center of the Vietnamese community since the 1980s. This heritage and Freedom flag. Proudly flies at so many Vietnamese events throughout Little Saigon Business District and Rainier Valley and other parts of this city. April 30th, 2015 mark the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. So many Vietnamese allies fled after the United States left Vietnam on April 30th, 1975, and over decades, beginning with Governor Dan Evans and other people in the state of Washington, welcomed and aided thousands of Vietnamese refugees. Many of these immigrants and refugees rebuilt their entire lives, sometimes only explaining to their children and their grandchildren the experiences they experience. The City of Seattle on other occasions and other resolutions 2489624 900 and other statements have indicated that there is a welcoming tradition here for our Vietnamese refugees. But this is the first attempt to recognize officially your heritage flag as the flag that we should use as a symbol for who you are and what you are. In the United States, approximately 13 state governments, seven counties and 85 other cities have adopted similar resolutions that recognize your Vietnam, Vietnamese heritage and freedom flag. It is long overdue for the City of Seattle to recognize that you again are rich part of our own history, and we should celebrate it. I have a few thank yous that I would like to say. Assuming that we will adopt this resolution and it'll be part of our legislative, we will accept it through our legislative process . I'd like to thank our own Lynn Quinn. Who is she? Actually runs this place, by the way. We just sit here. Lynn runs the place and Lynn Tai staff or Congressman Adam Smith played such a significant role in helping make this happen. Meaning, no president of the Vietnamese community of King and Snohomish County came along when president of the Vietnamese Mutual Assistance Association, Chong Tang, former president of the Vietnamese Community of Washington State. Tom Nguyen, owner of Tamarind Tree Restaurant. President of the neighborhood organization. Friends of Little Saigon. Men Duc Nguyen, executive director of Helping Link. And I also want to recognize the great work The Seattle Times has done through Tonton for publishing several stories in April about the 40th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. And of course, I'd like to thank my own staff member, Vin Tings, for working with me. So previously on this as well. Who was born in Vietnam so that you are rich community. Thank you for gracing us with your presence in City Hall. As I said downstairs, you've made us look so much more beautiful. And yes, I'm not talking to the guys. I'm talking to the women. You've made us look so much more beautiful here at City Hall. Thank you very much for your presence here.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Harrell are there all right? We haven't done anything yet, so hang up. Any questions or comments? Councilmember Licata Excuse me, folks, if we could, if we could have you. Please sit down and keep quiet, please. Thank you. Thank you. Please take your seats. Please. Councilmember Licata.
Speaker 3: I first of all want to thank Councilor Hale for recognizing all the leaders in the community, and I'm sure there's others that he hasn't recognized. And I want to welcome you to your city hall, where we try to, as much as possible, listen to people and respond to them in a democracy that we have, we recognize and support all of our diverse communities. And this resolution recognizes Seattle's Vietnamese community and the suffering it has endured. The Vietnam War was a terrible experience. Over a half a million soldiers than us were in Vietnam. And as one of the spokesperson said, over 50,000 Americans died there. That's not to mention the millions, millions of Vietnamese caught as innocents in that struggle. It's interesting statistic. The U.S. alone dropped more bombs in all of Vietnam than it had in World War Two in Europe. But now in America, as your representatives have spoken so eloquently, we are in a democracy. The barriers to freedom of speech, as you've demonstrated, and the freedom of communities to celebrate their histories. We do not share all the same history. Each of us brings us a different memories, different aspirations. But we all share the belief that fair and open elections are the only way to keep a democracy alive. If that only could have been accomplished in Vietnam to peacefully unite that country, perhaps you'd be living in a peace and freedom in Vietnam. But alas, unfortunately, the elections were never held. But now you are free to vote and participate in a democracy whose flag recognizes the freedom to not only be. Maintained by citizens who participate in our democracy but are not subject to political ideologies or family dynasties. Many of you will see, hopefully your children to grow a long, peaceful life that will contribute to a strong and vibrant. Democracy there responsive. To its citizens like you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council members.
Speaker 3: Want.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Burgess, and thanks to the councilmembers who spoke before me. It is great to see City Hall packed with so many people from one of the many communities which make Seattle a lively, colorful and thriving. Communities that have played a significant role in Seattle's fight for justice, against racism and for the rights of the immigrant community and all people of color. And as an immigrant woman of color myself, I identify with many of your sentiments. Your contribution to the culture, development and economic prosperity of Seattle is strong and needs to be fully acknowledged, not just acknowledged, but celebrated. I have great respect for the Vietnamese community and the thousands of Vietnamese people who have immigrated to the Seattle area. I am fully aware of the hardships, great suffering and tragedy of the thousands who immigrated here. The Vietnam War saw millions killed and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers dead. Many more Vietnamese and American people were wounded and impacted for life. The struggle against colonial rule and domination of Vietnam by foreign powers took many complicated and twisted turns. It led to suffering and tragedies on all sides. All people in Seattle, with its valued Vietnamese community, need to be more aware of this history and this heritage. So many people have faced this tragedy and its continuing memory. That is why I honestly believe that this resolution is not completely worked out. I fully support the first part of the resolution, but it says the city of Seattle honors its local Vietnamese community's history, contributions and achievements. Unfortunately, I think the subsequent portions where all of that respect and acknowledgment is put into in terms of support for one flag is not reflective of the complicated history and the high emotions still linked to so much hardship and suffering on different sides. The flags of the different sides, first of the anticolonial struggle and then of the American Vietnam War. Still today evoke tragic emotions and hurtful memories. Members of the Vietnamese American community. As all of you here are free to attach your own meanings to the flag. It is your right in a democracy. The City Council. However, as the city's highest elected body has a duty to not uncritically endorse these product projections and interpretations in the name of the entire city without a fuller understanding of the history of the flag. I personally believe it is a mistake for the City Council to endorse a flag of the former South Vietnam flag that is highly controversial and painful to many. I know many have strong opposition to the undemocratic regime in Vietnam today. I share this feeling. I stand for full democratic rights of the Vietnamese people and against the Vietnamese government's suppression of independent trade unions, free speech and political assembly. The US government and big corporations are only too happy with today's Vietnamese government. So suppressing workers rights, which allows U.S. based corporations to profit from giant sweatshops at the expense of Vietnamese workers and American workers. That is one reason I oppose the Obama administration's efforts to push through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would include Vietnam in the so-called trade agreement. But when it comes to democracy, the former South Vietnamese government was also a dictatorship. The U.S. war and occupation of Vietnam was totally undemocratic and was fought to suppress the right of the Vietnamese people to determine their own fate. The US war in Vietnam, which killed millions of Vietnamese people and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, was opposed by a majority of the Americans and the majority of the people in Vietnam and across the world. I think that as an elected body of a major metropolitan area, we have a duty to support these anti-war activists of the past and of the present and all those who will have the courage to stand up and oppose wars in the future while having the greatest respect for the Vietnamese community in Seattle. I am unable to vote for a resolution that ties this community's recognition to a particular flag that is mired in controversy. On the one hand, it connects rightful aspiration and hopes that many of you have. On the other hand, for others, it connects to a history of colonial oppression and a war brought to Vietnam by the United States at war. Like so many before and afterward, like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were started with high claims of defending humanitarian interests, but which were later on exposed as very narrow battles in the interests not of the people of those countries or of the people of the US, but in the interests of a tiny elite. Again, I have the deepest respect for the contribution of the Vietnamese community and your strong impact. I honor the rich heritage you are bringing to the U.S. and especially to this city, and I am strongly in favor of learning and teaching more about this history and all its connotations. And as an immigrant and as an elected public servant, I stand in solidarity with you to make Seattle a welcoming and affordable city for all. I invite you, all of you, very sincerely, to continue a dialog with me about these complicated issues so that we can take a balanced and careful stance after all the suffering and hardships your families and the people in Vietnam have gone through. Thank you very much for your interest and engagement in City Hall. And please understand my position as a starting point for more exchange and discussion. My door is always open for you, and I am looking forward to deepening my understanding on these issues, regardless of our disagreement on this present matter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. We don't we don't tolerate those kind of outbursts here, so please refrain from those kind of statements. Councilmember Okamoto. Thank you. Council President Burgess. I also want to.
Speaker 3: Thank Council Member Harold for bringing this resolution forward. I support this resolution because it's a statement of support for our local. Because it's a statement of support for our local Seattle Vietnamese community.
Speaker 0: And their very.
Speaker 3: Painful history, but also our rich history of welcoming you into this community.
Speaker 0: Over 40 years.
Speaker 3: Ago. Our country is a great country. Because we are a country full.
Speaker 0: Of immigrants and.
Speaker 3: Refugees who come.
Speaker 0: From a very.
Speaker 3: Painful history. But we have a future, a common future of hope and prosperity. I don't view.
Speaker 0: This resolution as.
Speaker 3: Taking sides.
Speaker 0: Or.
Speaker 3: Siding with one government or one political regime or another. I don't support this resolution just thinking that.
Speaker 0: It supports the.
Speaker 3: Local community at the expense of the people in Vietnam. We have a sister city relationship with the city of Haiphong. We were one of the first.
Speaker 0: Cities in the United.
Speaker 3: States to welcome Vietnamese Prime Minister Khai. With a lot of controversy. But this resolution honors our local Vietnamese community. And in that I support.
Speaker 0: It and urge my colleagues to.
Speaker 3: Support the resolution to.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will now vote on resolution 31591.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Would you like to? Yeah. All right. Requested that we take a roll call vote. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage and adoption of the resolution?
Speaker 2: So I don't know. Bagshaw I. Garden I.
Speaker 4: Harrow I.
Speaker 3: Licata I.
Speaker 2: O'Brien.
Speaker 3: I Okamoto.
Speaker 2: I Rasmussen. I President Burgess. Eight in favor one opposed it.
Speaker 0: Resolution is it?
Speaker 6: Read it. And.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. The resolution is adopted eight in favor, one opposed and the chair will sign. It will now move to items two, three and four. And gentlemen, if you're welcome to stay with us here as we continue our business. But if you wish to leave, if you could please quietly go out into the foyer and then we can continue here so you can stay and you're welcome to. But if you want to leave, please quietly leave to the foyer. Do your conversations out there. Will the clerk please read items two, three and four? | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION recognizing the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom flag as the symbol for Seattle’s Vietnamese community. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits