meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_06222015_CB 118414 | Speaker 0: The appointments are confirmed. The report of the Parks Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Please read Item seven.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118414 Authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the City of Seattle. A Waterway Permit for Waterway three and a waterway permit for a portion of Waterway four, both in Lake Union Park. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 2: This is a permit that we authorized the Superintendent of Parks to accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. On behalf of the city. These are two waterways, Waterway three and Waterway four, both of which you may know, adjoin to the probably would be the north east of Lake Union Park and the committee recommends passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And questions or comments. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: So, Sergeant. I beg your pardon. I harrow. I Licata.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Bye.
Speaker 2: Okamoto. Hi, Rasmussen. Hi, President Burgess. Hi. Nine in favor.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the City of Seattle a Waterway Permit for Waterway 3 and a Waterway Permit for a portion of Waterway 4, both in Lake Union Park. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06222015_CB 118408 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight.
Speaker 7: Agenda item eight Council Bill 118408 relating to the Seattle Center Department authorizing execution of an agreement with Festivals Inc for the presentation of the annual Byte of Seattle Festival at Seattle Center in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and ratifying and confirming prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member.
Speaker 2: Gordon. This is authorizing the head of the Seattle Center, Robert Nelms, to execute an agreement with Festivals Inc for the presentation of the annual byte of Seattle, which is a very free, family friendly, popular event for 2015, 16 and 17.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: So aren't I. I. I. Gordon Harrell I Lakota O'Brian.
Speaker 3: I Okamoto High.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen President Burgess High nine in favor.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Center Department; authorizing execution of an agreement with Festivals, Inc. for the presentation of the annual Bite of Seattle® Festival at Seattle Center in 2015, 2016, and 2017; and ratifying and confirming prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06152015_CB 118406 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 118406 relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing the necessary property rights in the Taylor Creek area of one 1005 Rainier Avenue. South Seattle, Washington for sediment management and fish enhancement and execute except in record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Director to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City, placing the conveyed real properties under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities and ratifying and confirming prior acts. The committee recommends a bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 5: And thank you very much. This is a parcel of property on Rainier Avenue South, and we're recommending that we acquire this. Seattle Public Utilities has been working on a lower Taylor Creek restoration project, and this will become part of it. And the goal is to improve the creek habitat and fish pass fish passage to replace a public culvert under Rainier Avenue South. And this will be akin to the work that was done up on Thornton Creek that will replace a small round tube with a larger rectangle through which fish can actually move. It also will help address localized flooding and reduce the sediment disposition that goes into Lake Washington, as in additionally to increase our public open space. So our goal is to be working with parks to assure continued public access along this line. The property was listed for sale two years ago. SPU negotiated a price of $545,000. And since SPU already owns a majority of the property for the project along this corridor, it will actually help lower maintenance costs and reduce the construction costs. And there is a house, an apartment building on that as part of the property right now. And SPU will maintain the property with its current tenants until about 2018 when restoration begins. So nobody's going to be evicted in the near future. And we are in the middle of a preliminary design and I would ask for your vote in support of this Council. Bill 118406.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Rasmussen I.
Speaker 1: So want back shall I garden i harrell i lakota i o'brien i okamoto I am president Burgess I nine in favor and opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Other business council member Okamoto.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, President Burgess. I'd like to make a request to be excused from the full council meeting on Monday, June 29th.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's moved in. Second, and the council member Okamoto be excused on June 29th. All in favor of the motion indicate by voting. I oppose vote no. You're excused. Is there any other business? Thank you. The council will be adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire by negotiation land and all other necessary property rights in the Taylor Creek area at 10005 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, Washington for sediment management and fish enhancement, and to execute, accept and record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Director to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City; placing the conveyed real properties under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06082015_CB 118396 | Speaker 1: Please read item 31.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 31 Council Bill 118396. An ordinance authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a contract with Banco Ltd to provide recycling processing services for the City of Seattle and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the Council bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. This action will authorize Seattle Public Utilities to execute a new recycling contract. And by way of background, the City of Seattle contracts with a private entity to process our waste stream recycling. And right now, we recycle 56.2% of all of the waste that we generate. And we currently have a recycling processing contract with Republic Services, and that began in April of 2009 and extends until next year. But Seattle Public Utilities went out and looked at whether or not they could have a more competitive contract. And I want to say thank you to my colleague, Councilmember Harrell, because both of us agree that as they go out looking for a new contract, we wanted to make sure that the employees were well cared for. And indeed, that became part of the requirements of the contract. So we were looking for the most advantageous contract for the city, the most money that we could get from our recycling. But we also wanted to make sure that the employees were giving a livable wage and that they continued to have permanent employee employment opportunities as well as good benefits. So SPP went out for bid. They received two responsive proposals from Republic Services and Recology. Both were competitive. We are recommending a new five year agreement proceed. It will be effective a year from now. April 26 ending in March 20, March of 2021, with two three year options to renew at the city's own decision making. So the agreement will continue to process all of our current recycling materials, including paper, plastics, metals and glass. The committee recommends do pass because ratepayers are expected to save over a million and a half dollars by doing this. And we say thank you to Tim Krul, who's here in the audience with us from Seattle Public Utilities, as well as Hans Van Dusen, who is also very responsive to our concerns.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions. Comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Okamoto I Rasmussen so want.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Back shot I garden Harrell Lakota I O'Brien I am president Burgess I and I have in favor and and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Report of the Transportation Committee. Please read item 32. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into a contract with Rabanco, Ltd. to provide recycling processing services for the City of Seattle; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06082015_CF 314290 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Transportation Committee Agenda Item 3232 Clerk File 314290 Request for an extension to the conditional approval of a petition of 1 to 2 one East Disney Owner LLC to vacate a portion of the alley in BLOCK 54. Heirs of Sarah Abel's second addition to the City of Seattle Clerk File 309396. The committee recommends the request be approved.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. The. The developer has not been able to get the project started yet. They've asked for a two year extension for the vacation and all of the public benefit requirements that were required by the Council still stand and have to be complied with before the ordinance that actually vacates the property would be granted. And so that because they do still have the obligation to not only pay the fees, but also meet their public benefit obligations. The committee recommends approval of the extension.
Speaker 1: Are there any questions or comments? Those in favor of approving the request vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries unanimously. The request is approved. The chair will sign the findings of the City Council. Is there any other business to come before the Council? Thank you. We are adjourned. | Clerk File (CF) | Request for an extension to the conditional approval of a petition of 1221 East Denny Owner, LLC to vacate a portion of the alley in Block 54, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle (CF 309396). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05262015_CB 118391 | Speaker 6: Agenda item one. Council Bill 118391. An ordinance relating to the 2015 budget amending ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 budget, changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation and to the Human Services Department, creating both exempt and nonexempt positions. Authorizing the Director of Finance to enter into an interlocal agreement with the State Department of Licensing in ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, all by at least a three quarter vote of the City Council held on May 18th, 2015.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You'll recall that we held this council bill at the last council meeting in order to develop language for an amendment to the legislation, which will help to ensure that we closely watched and monitor the cost of administration of the vehicle license fee rebate. As I know all of you know, the city was fortunate to have Proposition one passed last November, which authorized a $60 increase in the vehicle license fee and a 1/10 of 1% increase in the sales tax in Seattle. And this will allow the increase of about 230,000 new transit hours of service in Seattle. And the first increase in service will occur in June. And then the second round of increasing of services will occur in September. What this legislation does is amend the 2015 budget of the city of Seattle, and this has to be done in order to implement the new bus service coming. It has $31 billion in 2015 appropriation to the Department of Transportation to reflect the new revenues coming to the city through the Transportation Benefit District, and 1/10 of 1% sales tax increase and a $60 vehicle license fee increase revenue. That also adds to new positions to the Department of Transportation to help manage the new transit service the city is purchasing from Metro. The Department of Transportation positions are critical to ensure that the city has sufficient staff to monitor and oversee the use of city funds and to ensure the supplanting of city of dollars does not occur when the service begins. Of the $31 million in revenues that are being added to the city's budget, 278,000 will go to our Human Services Department Utility Discount Program, which will be responsible for administering the vehicle license fee rebate program. I know that a number of council members had concerns about this level of funding going to the Human Services Department because it allows the funding of four and a quarter full time equivalent positions over the next seven months to process and distribute what is estimated by the executive to be 20,000 vehicle license fee rebates. The concern that I have is that there are only a total of 17,000 households now enrolled in the utility discount program, which is the program for low income customers. That has been underway for decades now. I had concerns that we would see that many applications coming to the Human Services Department to 20,000 rebates this year because first of all, there's been no advertising and publicity about the vehicle license fee rebate that's going to begin coming soon. So word has to go out about the eligibility requirements and the potential for a rebate for those who are income eligible. We also haven't seen a clear and specific plan for how the Human Services Department will work to distribute the orca lift cards, which is the low income fare card to Seattle residents. And that's another responsibility under Proposition one that the Human Services Department will have. So because of the concerns about the what I would anticipate would be a relatively low volume of applications for the vehicle license fee increase rebate. That is, I was concerned that fall $278,000 to the Human Services Department would allow the hiring of people who would have far less to do than was being projected by the executive. So the original amendment that I proposed last week would have cut $100,000 from the 278,000 from the Human Services Department. But we heard strong urging from our budget office and from the Human Services Department that they wanted to make sure that we had sufficient staffing in the Human Services Department to handle the volume of vehicle license fee rebate requests that would be coming in. So they didn't want people to have to wait. And I would agree, we want to have good customer service and we wanted to ensure that the rebates could occur as quickly as possible. In discussing the concerns that the. I could have had. I think that we've come up with a good compromise, and for that reason I have a substitute amendment to this council bill. And the council bill would now do with this amendment would appropriate the full $278,000 to the Human Services Department. But we are withholding their authorization to use $100,000 of that until the executive submit a report showing how the $100,000 are going to be used by the Human Services Department. And that's essentially what the amendment says the executive has to report on how many vehicle license fee rebates have been issued, how many Orca Lyft cards have been distributed by the Human Services Department at the time? This report is submitted to the Transportation Committee in the City Council. It also requires an outreach and enrollment plan for the vehicle license fee rebate system, and that has to be provided by the executive with clear, measurable, short term and long term goals for how many VLF I'll use that and for short rebates will be issued in the future. And how many Orca Lyft cards will be distributed as well? The executive is also required to look at strategies for lowering the cost of processing. We heard that it may cost $17 to rebate a $20 fee, and we're concerned about that high administrative cost, of course. The the report also requires the executive to work with other organizations. I'm thinking of community based organizations and nonprofits to develop strategies for outreach and for boosting enrollment in the low income programs. So that is the substance of the amendment, the intent of the amendment. And I believe that each of you has the full text of the amendment to the council bill. And if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer those.
Speaker 0: You're moving amendment number two. Yes. To our blue sheet from this morning. And I think it's on a white sheet at our desks here at the surface.
Speaker 1: On a white sheet for this afternoon's council meeting. It was on a blue sheet this morning.
Speaker 0: Is there a second to the amendment? Any questions or comments for Councilmember Rasmussen? Council member Gordon and Council member. So what?
Speaker 2: Well, I would just like to say thank you very much to Councilmember Rasmussen for negotiating this amendment. It seems very, very question that it would be great, that there is no question that we would be keeping our promise. And I, while trying at the same time, to make application for low income discounts easier. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Council Member So one.
Speaker 2: Thing you guys remember, Brian, for those comments. My comments are on the sorry. Rasmussen Yes. What did I say? O'Brien Oh, we're often mistaken. I just dug in two guys over. O'Brien I met Councilmember Rasmus and.
Speaker 0: They're often mistaken.
Speaker 2: And my comments are on the new version of the amendment, which I appreciate you bringing. And I want to say that like a lot of people in Seattle, I was concerned to read the Seattle Times article that revealed that the city had to spend would have to spend $37 for each $20 rebate it sends out to low income people who are paying the Ghadafi from Prop one. Part of the $17 overhead goes to profits for Wells Fargo, which is, in my view, unacceptable. But the bulk of it will go to processing applications to confirm that people are actually low income. You know, that is that they satisfy the requirement of low income. But I think that just going by economic research, which shows that people tend to under enroll, not over enroll for these programs, I think a lot of this overhead would be unnecessary. Every time there is complicated application process to get some public benefit, as a matter of fact, many people who qualify for it do not successfully apply. In other words, the you know, the city's worried that a few people who do not qualify might take advantage. But effectively, when we have such a program, it effectively ends up excluding large percentage of the people who should qualify. And in Anaheim, speaking from economic research, not from a not as a matter of opinion. And as some of you may know, the Seattle Transit Writers Union has suggested an elegant solution to the excessive cost of administering this much needed rebate. We can use an honor system. When people pay their card tab, they can have a check box where on penalty of perjury, they can swear that their income is below the required threshold of 45% of area median income. Then they would pay less than $20 less. So there's no question of rebate when they go and full and they are paid $20 less right then. So it is a system which would have much lower overhead and no discount cards have to be issued. No processing of obligations is required. It's possible that some people would lie on the inject the box even though their incomes are higher. But even if that were to happen, which as I said, from economic research, is not the overwhelming reality. Ironically, even if that happened, it would cost the city far less than the cost of checking to make sure that it doesn't happen. So I support this amendment to have the mayor's office come up with a plan to better administer these rebates. But I would suggest strongly to the mayor's office that they use the Transit Riders Union's plan, which is quite sensible. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Swan. I appreciate that. I was also at the transit union meeting last week where they brought this up. Councilmember Rasmus and I totally support what you're doing here and appreciate that. And I just want to let the public know that this conversation about making our utility discount program and others something that works for people rather than making it difficult. We're exploring in my office as well this Friday, 2:00 at our Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhood Committee. The reason for that is we have this utility discount program already underway. It is operated by our Human Services Department, but Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities, King County, Seattle King County Public Health. Our Do It program also has a lower income program that it operates for Internet and cable franchises. And then our Orca Lift project, that's like six or seven discount programs that low income folks can access, but we're not making it simple for them. So we're going to move ahead with this two in my committee on Friday at 2:00. And I just really welcome everybody's ideas so that we can make this simpler and like a single portal for people.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Councilmember Rasmussen, you'll be our last speaker.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good comments, everyone. We definitely we want the simplest system possible to keep the administrative cost as low as possible. I know that our Department of Transportation and Metro did work with the State Department of Licensing to determine if the Department of Licensing could have a simpler system or to develop a simpler system than what we have. But as we heard in the committee, their computer system wouldn't allow some more elegant systems, such as checking a box to make the administrative costs less. But still, we'll continue to work with the Department of Licensing to see if they can help us reduce the administrative costs. I want to thank the council members who have worked most actively with me on this, and that includes council members Okamoto, O'Brien and Bagshaw. And then also there have been a number of human service providers and transportation advocates who have helped us as well. And that includes the Transportation Choices Coalition, the Human Services Coalition and also the Transit Riders Union. So thank you to everyone.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Please call the roll and the passage. Excuse me. The amendment before us is amendment number two, as proposed by Councilmember Rasmussen. All in favor of the amendment. Vote. I oppose. Vote No. The amendment is unanimously adopted. We now have the amended ordinance before us. Are there any further comments or questions? Please call the role and the passage of Council Bill 118391 as amended.
Speaker 4: Licata, I.
Speaker 2: O'Brien. Okamoto.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen, I.
Speaker 2: So want a big shot I got in I Harrill President Burgess high nine in favor.
Speaker 0: An unopposed bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Education and Governance Committee, please read item two to the end of the second line.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Education and Governance Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118398 An ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the first quarter 2015 employment ordinance. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2015 Budget; amending Ordinance 124648, which adopted the 2015 Budget; changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation and to the Human Services Department; creating both exempt and non-exempt positions; authorizing the Director of Finance to enter into an interlocal agreement with the State Department of Licensing; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by at least a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05262015_CB 118392 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Park Seattle Center. Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Agenda Item three Council Bill 118392 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 8118 Greenwood Avenue North. Authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park and recreation purposes. And ratifying and confirming certain prior acts all by a three fourths vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 2: And this is a piece of property at 82nd and Greenwood, and it is being acquired for open space parks and recreation purposes, something that the Parks Department has been working on for, I think, five years and finally was able to acquire it. And it will add to the green, it will add to the park space available to Greenwood residents who we're very happy about this and we urge its passage.
Speaker 0: Questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Lakota Hi. O'Brien Hi, Akimoto.
Speaker 1: Hi. Rasmussen All right.
Speaker 2: Sergeant. I beg your pardon. Gordon, I.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: President Burgess nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items four and five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 8118 Greenwood Avenue North; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a three-fourths vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05042015_CB 118373 | Speaker 0: Thank you. All in favor of adopting version four of resolution 31578. Indicate by voting. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. The report of the Finance and Culture Committee. Please read item two.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Finance and Culture Committee Agenda Item number two Council Bill 118373. An ordinance relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services declaring the vacant property located at 8030 Fauntleroy way Southwest. A 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 to Gary Moore and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 8: This is a surplus piece of property the city has. We are unable to use it for any public purpose. It's a very narrow piece of land, probably about ten feet wide, 30 feet long, and it was determined to build on the market. The Gary Moore, who's the owner of the adjacent property, does wish to purchase it, and this will allow the city to basically surplus the property and allow the next door neighbor to purchase it at a market value.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Faction. Hi, Gordon. Hi, Carol. I look at it, I go, Brian I Okamoto I Rasmussen so want and President Burgess nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee.
Speaker 7: Item three The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda. Item number three Council Bill 118369 relating to the Department of Finance. Oh, excuse me. Is that the one I just read?
Speaker 0: Yes. Item three. Oh.
Speaker 7: You got the right one. Utilities relating to the rates and charges for water services of Seattle. Public Utilities authorizing withdrawals from the water fund, revenue stabilization sub fund, revising water rates and charges and credits to low income customers, and amending the Seattle Municipal Code. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, declaring the vacant property located at 8030 Fauntleroy Way SW 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 to Gary Moore; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04132015_CB 118350 | Speaker 0: So thank you very much. The report of the Energy Committee. Please read item two.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Energy Committee. Agenda item number two Council Bill 118350 relating to the city light department, changing the operation of the rate stabilization account and amending the Seattle Municipal Code. 21.4 9.0 86g. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member so on.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Brian Burgess. This is an ordinance that will push back the effective trigger date for the rate stabilization account until January 1st, 2016. The reserves in the account have surpassed the upper boundary of under $25 million. But the Energy Committee has been told by Seattle City Light that this could be a temporary anomaly from the early melt of the snowpack this winter and that by the end of the summer this will correct itself. And if we did not push off the trigger date, we would likely have to go through the process of discussing a new rate ordinance which would become obsolete before it was finished. And therefore, the Energy Committee recommends that full council pass this council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen All right. So want.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Back up?
Speaker 7: Will you call me back?
Speaker 1: I got it. Hi, Carol. Hi, President Burgess.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Seven, seven. And favorite and opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. 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 three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; changing the operation of the Rate Stabilization Account, and amending Seattle Municipal Code 21.49.086.G. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04132015_CB 118356 | Speaker 0: Thank you. 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 three.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries and Gender Pay Equity Committee. Agenda Item number two Council Bill 118356 Relating to City Employment. Adding a new Chapter 4.27 to the Seattle Municipal Code to provide a paid parental leave benefit to eligible city employees. Amending Seattle Municipal Code Subsection 4.20.055 to provide the paid parental leave benefit to eligible temporary workers and establishing other conditions of implementing the new benefit. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 7: Well, let's first take a moment to think about the public testimony, money that we heard earlier from the women who had had experiences having given birth without any parental leave. This is a momentous day for our city. Passing paid parental leave legislation will make Seattle the first municipality in the region to have a paid parental leave policy . It is also deeply personal, as we heard from the public comment, to add what we already heard. I would like to read a couple of excerpts from the many letters of support that I have received. Gunnar wrote council last week that while he and his husband do not plan to have children, he wrote on behalf of his sister, who has had a child last year without paid parental leave. After exhausting her vacation time to recover after the birth, she is now back at work but does not have any paid time off for when a call makes its way through the daycare or when family emergencies occur. Beyond personal family reason, Gunnar cites how the US is the only industrialized country without paid parental leave and where it is implemented. It is shown to have a positive outcome for employee retention and competition for talent in the labor market. The city should be and must be a model employer to attract the best talent and paid parental leave will make that a reality. The city of Seattle also must be an inclusive city, as we heard from Madeleine. Here is what she wrote to me in 2014. We were matched for an adoption in Texas. We drove to Texas a week prior to the baby's birth to ensure that we were in the state on time. And we were in Texas for about three weeks before returning home with our bundle of joy. While we had three months of protected leave under federal and state laws, none of this was paid. We had to weigh the importance of bonding with our child to being able to pay our bills with an adoption that cost $60,000 on a middle class income. There are a lot of choices. We each took an additional week once we returned home with vacation and sick time, already exhausted after the weeks in Texas. This was unpaid at my company. Women who give birth to a child receive short term leave, which at least qualifies and provides a portion of their pay while they are on maternity leave. Men do not qualify and I did not qualify, not having given birth. This inequity allows women who give birth to take maternity leave without fear of having to pay at all, whereas I was completely left uncovered. Those were Natalee's words. But this paid parental leave. But with this paid parental leave. Legislation. No family working for the city of Seattle will face what Natalie based. Having to choose between income and bonding with their child. Beyond this, however, paid parental leave is an important tool in combating the gender pay gap. When paid parental leave is prioritized for both men and women, it can shift the perception of women as the main child care provider in the home. Retention of female employees and their mobility into higher paying roles can be improved when paid. Parental leave is encouraged for both men and women. This legislation will make the city of Seattle a model employer, not just for families, but for helping to narrow the gender pay gap. The legislation before us will provide four weeks of paid leave to city employees with tender of more than six months, regardless of gender, who welcome a new child into their home. This can be by foster care, adoption or birth. The child must be 18 years or younger, and the leave must be utilized within the first year of the child joining the employee's family. I have added additional evaluation component to this legislation, including a presentation to the Council so that we can monitor how this paid parental leave policy operates. I would like to thank my colleagues for their continued support on this important legislation, and I would like to thank Mayor Murray for his unwavering commitment to narrowing the wage gap and to paid parental leave. I would also like to help, too. I would like to think I would like to give really big thanks to those who operate behind the scenes, but who are critical to the legislation that we have here today. Thank you to my previous legislative aide, Monica Gauche, for spearheading paid parental leave and keeping the conversation going despite any obstacles. Thank you to council central staff Patricia Leigh and Dan Peter. And thank you to Sarah Butler and Susan Cox Ski with the Human Resources Department, Katie Ewing and Ben Noble with the central business of the Central Budget Office and Sara Wilkinson from law. And thank you to everyone who wrote in or spoke on behalf of paid parental leave. I still have pictures of children that were born before we got paid parental leave posted in my office. And we're grateful for people who don't necessarily intend to have more kids. At least help us back this for others. I share this momentous day with you. With that, I had the mic back over to my colleagues who might have any questions or comments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions. Comments. Council Members A1.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Burgess. I fully support this essential workers. Right. And I thank the council for working on it. I also thank Meghan for her testimony as she so clearly highlighted. Despite having worked for nearly ten years for the city government that serves such a wealthy city as ours. She has had to struggle and many women like her and working close parents need paid parental leave, particularly when daycare is so expensive. It is particularly important for women who, statistically speaking, take more unpaid parental leave, end up having to target exacerbating the gender pay gap, as Councilmember Gordon said. And so this legislation such as this addresses the gender disparities as well as provides for better outcomes for children. And as a public institution, I am glad that the city is taking this step of offering four weeks parental leave, and I hope that the Council will, as a next step, look to expanding it to 12 weeks. In the next budget because that is so necessary. I think that also another step should be to looking to the private sector as well. Beyond setting a good example, the Council will require to actually pass legislation to ensure that the private sector is held accountable as well and paid parental leave becomes the norm in this city. But for this moment, I am very happy to vote in favor of this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen I so want back shot. I got it. Carroll And President Burgess, seven in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Congratulations, Councilmember Gordon. And I understand also you have a proclamation that is related to this in a way. Do you want to do that at this time?
Speaker 7: Well, it is related to the gender pay gap. It isn't really quite a partial parcel of this, but it does have sort of some of the same elements. This is a proclamation proclaiming Equal Pay Day, whereas April 14th, 2015 marks the additional 74 days. The average woman would have had to work in 2014 to earn the same 2014 salary as the average man. And. WHEREAS, in Seattle, women who work full time earn 73% of what men earn, generating a $16,346 gap in pay. And. Whereas, the gender wage gap exists for all women, regardless of rape or anything in this in this and ethnic. This is. And. Well, anyway, regardless of race. Yet it is the largest for women of color. Whereas single women typically earn 21.2% less than married women, while a single woman earns only $0.57 to the dollar compared to married men. Whereas women face a pay gap in nearly every occupation, from schoolteachers to computer programmers and are paid less than men in female dominated gender balance and male dominated occupations. And. Whereas, the pay gap hinders Seattle families and the economy, as women make 75% of household spending decisions, they're now therefore be proclaimed by the mayor and the City of Seattle City Council. April 40, 2015 is Equal Pay Day and it is signed by all the council members and the mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Please read and read the remaining items. The appointments. | Ordinance (Ord) | An ORDINANCE relating to City employment; adding a new Chapter 4.27 to the Seattle Municipal Code to provide a Paid Parental Leave Benefit to eligible city employees; amending Seattle Municipal Code Subsection 4.20.055 to provide the Paid Parental Leave benefit to eligible temporary workers; and establishing other conditions of implementing the new benefit. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04132015_CB 118359 | Speaker 0: Please read item 20.
Speaker 6: The report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item number 20 Council Bill 118359 relating to the Seattle Public Utilities declaring certain real property rights as being surplus to the city's municipal utility needs, granting an easement to Burlington Northern Railway Company for limited purposes over and across the city. Siebert, Cedar River Pipeline number four, right of way. King County Assessor Parcel Number 0005800017. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Banks.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you very much. This legislation is needed for a 30 by 50 foot easement over the city's Bow Lake water transmission pipeline, which for those of you who may not know exactly where it is, it's down near Tukwila and very close to the sound transfer. The sound transit station, the sounder station is expanding. And we are going to need to provide an opportunity for the Burlington Northern Easement to be made. What happens here is that the track will be provided, an additional track will be added, and the city is going to benefit because the BNSF has agreed to build a protection system for the benefit of the Cedar River pipeline. Number four, the cost is estimated to be $250,000 to Burlington Northern. We reap the benefits committee recommends do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien Rasmussen Solent picture guy Gordon Carroll and President Burgess High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? Seeing none. We are adjourned. Thank you. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights as being surplus to the City’s municipal utility needs; granting an easement to Burlington Northern Railway Company, for limited purposes, over and across the City’s Cedar River Pipeline #4 right of way (a.k.a. Bow Lake Pipeline), King County Assessor Parcel number 0005800017. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04062015_Res 31574 | Speaker 3: I but I think that I've got a short amendment on this.
Speaker 1: No, that's.
Speaker 3: Next. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Clark. I got him. And President Burgess.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report to the full council.
Speaker 2: The report of the full council agenda. Item number one. Resolution 31574 retiring, introduced and referred council bills, resolutions and quick files which have received no further action. Introduced March 30th, 2015.
Speaker 1: I move to pass resolution 31574. Second, thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We have a cleanup to the cleanup here and that's to delete clerk file 314230 from the list of proposed 2015 retired legislation. What happened here was that this particular item was an error and should not have been included and is not eligible for retirement.
Speaker 1: I'll second that motion. Any questions or comments on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment to delete. Clark filed 314230 vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment is adopted. The resolution, as amended, is now before us. Any further comments or questions? All in favor of resolution 31574 as amended. Vote I oppose Vote No. The resolution is adopted unanimously and the chair will sign it. The report of the Education and Governance Committee, please read item two.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Education and Governance Committee Agenda Item number two Council Bill 118363 relating to the Seattle Preschool Program, approving an implementation plan as required by ordinance 124509 and Resolution three one 5 to 7. Amending the tuition model in the action plan adopted by Ordinance 124509 and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION retiring introduced and referred Council Bills, Resolutions, and Clerk Files which have received no further action. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04062015_CB 118363 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Education and Governance Committee Agenda Item number two Council Bill 118363 relating to the Seattle Preschool Program, approving an implementation plan as required by ordinance 124509 and Resolution three one 5 to 7. Amending the tuition model in the action plan adopted by Ordinance 124509 and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the best the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. This is the culmination of about two and a half years of work where we've been working on implementing high quality preschool in Seattle and the first classrooms will open this next September. I remember very much at the very beginning when we were working on the Families and Education Levy renewal in 2011. We realized then that we should invest much, much earlier, even before kindergarten, with our three and four year olds. And so we set on this journey. We took a study mission, and several of you went with us to the East Coast, to Boston and New Jersey. In Washington, D.C., we read the literature. We brought researchers here who sat with us at the committee table, and we engage the community parents, preschool teachers, the school district, active participant with us, preschool providers, a long list. Hundreds of people that we talked to and and engaged with over the last couple of years about what could Seattle do to make sure that every child entered kindergarten ready to learn and have a successful education path. And last November, the voters of Seattle, 69.2% of them said, yes, we want to invest in our children. We do live in a great city. And Councilmember Clark, you're going to miss doing this kind of work because we actually move the needle here to make a difference for our kids. So this legislation adopts the implementation plan, all the specific details about what we need to do to get ready in September and for the next four years to run this pilot project. And then we'll be back probably in year three to figure out how do we make this permanent? How do we fund it going forward? Special thanks to Holly Miller and her team. They're sitting back here from the city's Department of Education and early learning lots and lots of hours that you all put in. And we deeply appreciate that work from you. Questions or comments?
Speaker 3: Just just one more.
Speaker 1: Member of Bancroft.
Speaker 3: Council, President Burgess, I really want to thank you for your leadership on this. It's been really it's been impressive for me to watch how thoroughly how deeply you have dived into this. And I really want to also say thank you, Holly Miller, and your team. For me, it's been great to participate and to learn what you have had to teach us. And I'm very enthused not only about the opportunity that every child in the city of Seattle is going to have to be ready to learn. We're ramping up on a program, which is a good way to do this. And I also want to acknowledge the fact that we had many teachers and administrators here suggesting to us that what the teachers need to be successful are to have the mentors, the coaches. And that is something that everybody has said over and over again. I'm very supportive of that. And again, Council President Burgess, thanks for your leadership. And I'm all in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: HARRELL Lakota High. O'BRIEN All right. RASMUSSEN All right. So want back shot, all right. CLARKE Hi, Gordon and President. Burgess Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Thank you. Please read items three, four, five and six.
Speaker 2: Agenda items three through six. Appointments 51 through 54. Appointments of William Chen, Saadia, Hamid, Ruth Kgi and Jonathan Pranab as members, families and Education Levy Oversight Committee for terms of confirmation to December 31st, 2018, the committee recommends all appointments be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Preschool Program; approving an Implementation Plan as required by Ordinance 124509 and Resolution 31527; amending the tuition model in the Action Plan adopted by Ordinance 124509; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04062015_CB 118311 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee Agenda Item number eight. Council Bill 118311 relating to the Seattle Shoreline Master Program amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan Provisions in the Shoreline District. Thank you. Committee.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 2: The Committee recommends approval bill pass as amended.
Speaker 1: I didn't want you to get started on all those numbers. So, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. As chair of the committee, I could ask of Councilmember Clark would like to read in all those numbers to get some some more face time here before we leave. So. Dunbar, I may have a substitution here in a minute, but why don't I go ahead and speak to the bill for a second? I think one of the things that's important to remember the what the reason we do the shoreline management, and it's really to protect our our shoreline habitat. And there's so many competing uses, especially in an urban area like Seattle, for competing for that valuable space on the waterfront and remembering that the end of the day, we're trying to preserve the habitat for all the critters that survive on that and manage our existing use of it in a way that's consistent with that. And as we heard in testimony today, this has been a very long process. But I'm proud to say that we're at a point now where we have a bill that everyone I've talked to can live with and supports. And I think that's a great spot to be in after a lot of hard work. I want to thank all the advocates in the community, whether it's industrial landowners or folks who live on the water working through this process. Also thank DPD staff for a very long process and Department of Ecology has been engaged in this too. Before we move forward, I want to go ahead and move to substitute version. I believe it's version 13 for version 12. And what this version does is it's just clean ups, things like correcting for parallel construction and changing for correct adjectival use.
Speaker 3: Second, always that word adjectival.
Speaker 1: The adjective ocean before us is to substitute version 13 for version 12. Any further comments? All in favor of the amendment vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment passes and version 13 is before us.
Speaker 0: So the final thing I'll say is this has been before the council before and came back with some changes. That's where we are today. Once we vote this out of council, it does have to go back to the Department of Ecology for ultimate ratification, I guess is the word I'll use. We've been working closely with Department of Ecology through this process, and our understanding is that and I'm confident that everything we've done here today is consistent with the state's goals, and I expect that this would be ratified soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 3: Excellent. And in all seriousness, this is a big deal. So the updated the shoreline master plan, it's all I mean, your testimony almost makes it sound like it was easy in some way, which is an incredible feat that you two have been able to do that. And there's so much more to the shoreline master master program than what we've talked about in terms of overwater residences or houseboats or house barges. And I'm missing probably three or four other descriptions for what they are. But Joe, you came up to the microphone. There was a ton of work in terms of industrial uses and what it means to have a working waterfront and be and be consistent with those values that Councilmember O'Brien talked about. We have we have a habitat we care about. We have an economy we care about. We have in a way of people living on the water that's important to us as a community that isn't just cute, but is real. People actually live their lives in that way, and it's important to to the values and who we are as a city. And so being able to bring those things together, I echo the sentiment about Faith Lumsden being awesome. So she's been great and certainly having Brian Surratt do the shuttle diplomacy pretty awesome. So thanks very much to the staff and to the people who were able to see this out, who were able to see it all the way through.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended legislation.
Speaker 2: Harrill Lakota by Orion Rasmussen All right so want back shot.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 2: Clark I got it and president Burgess high nine in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed the resolution passes and the chair will sign it. Other resolutions, please read item nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Shoreline Master Program; amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan provisions in the Shoreline District; amending Sections 23.60A.020, 23.60A.066, 23.60A.090, 23.60A.152, 23.60A.154, 23.60A.156, 23.60A.157, 23.60A.164, 23.60A.167, 23.60A.172, 23.60A.187, 23.60A.190, 23.60A.193, 23.60A.200, 23.60A.202, 23.60A.204, 23.60A.206, 23.60A.214, 23.60A.215, 23.60A.217, 23.60A.224, 23.60A.240, 23.60A.252, 23.60A.282, 23.60A.294, 23.60A.310, 23.60A.382, 23.60A.384, 23.60A.386, 23.60A.388, 23.60A.390, 23.60A.392, 23.60A.394, 23.60A.402, 23.60A.410, 23.60A.442, 23.60A.446, 23.60A.450, 23.60A.460, 23.60A.482, 23.60A.484, 23.60A.486, 23.60A.490, 23.60A.502, 23.60A.504, 23.60A.506, 23.60A.508, 23.60A.510, 23.60A.512, 23.60A.540, 23.60A.575, 23.60A.578, 23.60A.902, 23.60A.906, 23.60A.908, 23.60A.912, 23.60A.914, 23.60A.916, 23.60A.918, 23.60A.924, 23.60A.926, 23.60A.928, 23.60A.930, 23.60A.934, 23.60A.936, 23.60A.938, 23.60A.942, 23.60A.944, 23.60A.958, 23.60A.970, 23.72.006, 23.91.002 of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations of the SMC, adding new Sections 23.6 | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04062015_Res 31575 | Speaker 2: Adoption of other resolutions. Agenda item number nine. Resolution 31575. Supporting the establishment of a dignified and robust wage for employees performing work in cities across America as part of a national mobilization on April 15th to promote higher wages for all working families. Introduced April six, 2015.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Lakota.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This resolution is part of a national mobilization. It's going to be occurring April 15th, whereby workers across the country will be out demonstrating, but also making public statements, as well as public officials supporting the establishment of dignified and robust wages for employees. The April 15th event will involve 60,000 people in the fast food industry alone, and they will be involved in walkouts in many instances in 200 cities across the country. Should also point out that in Washington state there will be 1000 workers that will be doing these activities and will be in cities across the state such as Spokane , Pasco, Yakima, Olympia, SeaTac. And it's more than just fast food workers. This will also involve workers that are adjunct professor is in fact myself in controversy while we're at a assembly of students and their drunk professors not too long ago at Seattle University who wanted to be recognized as a bargaining unit as well as other people working in this industry, the childcare providers and home care workers nationally. If going back to just looking at the fast food industry, there are roughly 2.5 million workers in that industry and about half of them earn less than $15 an hour. One of the major problems our country faces is a lack of the ability to sustain a vibrant economy. Just last month, the employment rate actually was lower than it had been in the previous year on a monthly basis. And one of the reasons is that people are just not earning enough money to actually go out and support the economy. So it's critical that we start recognizing that the concentration of too much money in too few hands has, in fact hurting the entire country's economy. So this resolution is a way of saying that we want our workers to receive a dignified wage and get the economy moving again. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 3: I just couldn't help myself. It's a good resolution. That's okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All in favor of adopting resolution 31575 Vote I II oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? Councilmember Clark, we're going to remove your May 11 excuse absence. Okay, great.
Speaker 3: I thought you would make it come back.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much and will be adjourned. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting the establishment of a dignified and robust wage for employees performing work in cities across America, as part of a national mobilization on April 15th to promote higher wages for all working families. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03232015_CB 118347 | Speaker 0: Please read item two the first three clauses of that bill.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Gender number two Cancel 118 347 relating to the city's cable communications ordinance. Amending Chapter 21.60 of the State of Missouri Code to reflect advances in technology and changes in federal law to create a logical organization of the Chapter four ease of reference to promote competition in cable services, to enhance consumer protection, and to preserve the city's authority in a fluid regulatory environment. Updating the membership requirements and duties of the citizens telemarketing issue excuse me. Telecommunications Safety Technology Advisory Board renaming it the Community Technology Advisory Board and moving the requirements and duties of the board from Chapter 21.62 Chapter 3.20 to renaming Subtitle five of Title 21 and Chapter 21.60. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Council President. Before I get into the substance of the ordinance, I have two amendments. The First Amendment has two components of them, and then the second one is a technical amendment. So let me move. Let me read the amendments and let me get them in the record, and then I'll describe how these amendments fit into the context of the entire ordinance. So having said that, I move to amend Council Bill 118347 Section 21 by substituting subsection A3 of SME C 21.6 .170 with the following paragraph. Now, clerk, I'm going to have to, I have to read this literally in the record verbatim. Correct. Yes. I'll take that as a yes.
Speaker 0: Or you can have the clerk read it. Whichever.
Speaker 5: I'll read it. I like to hear myself read sometimes. Okay. Section number three All grantees to verify low income requirement grantee shall meet with and provide documentation to the Office of Cable Communications not less frequently than Semiannually to demonstrate that it has met the low income service provision requirement in subsection 21 desk 60-170.8.1.b for a new franchise if applicable at the time of a particular meeting or in subsection. 21.6 0.170.8.2 for a renewed franchise. Quarterly. The Office of Cable Communications shall provide to council a copy of the grant of grantees documentation demonstrating that Grantee has met its low income service provision requirement, along with the Office of Cable Communications Analysis of Grantees documentation. If Grantee does not demonstrate compliance. The Office of Cable Communication shall report the noncompliance to council in its quarterly report. The Office of Cable Communications shall provide these quarterly reports for the first five years of a new franchise and for the first two years of a renewed franchise and shall continue to provide these quarterly reports thereafter, if so requested by the Chair of the Council Committee with Oversight Responsibility for Cable Issues. The other part of the amendment is this. And by adding a new subsection four entitled The Office of Cable Communication shall develop procedures and metrics to implement this subsection 21.6 0.1708 to describe how compliance with the low income service provision requirement will be measured and what threshold of service will be deemed to constitute compliance. That is the First Amendment that I move.
Speaker 0: That it's moved in second, and the Councilmembers Herald Harrell's amendment be adopted. You want to make any comments or are there any questions?
Speaker 5: Did any of you understand that?
Speaker 0: Yes, we understand it. You did a good job in briefing this morning. All in favor of the amendment vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment is unanimously adopted.
Speaker 5: Okay. And in all seriousness, I will talk about what these amendments do does to the base legislation. The Second Amendment is a very simple one. I move to amend Council Bill 118347, section 32 to fill in two blanks with council bill number 118347.
Speaker 0: It's moved and seconded that Councilmember Harrell Second Amendment be adopted. Any questions all in favor of adopting the amendment vote. I oppose vote no. The amendment is unanimously adopted.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much. So the legislation as amended, we're basically revising the cable code. And for those sort of following this issue, our cable code basically was established about 40 years ago and governs how cable providers operate within our city. As you well know, we have a changing regulatory environment in terms of who who regulates phone service and who or what body regulates the Internet service. This is dealing with cable providers. So the cable code sort of demonstrates how we treat cable providers and how they treat consumers such as yourself or Comcast or CenturyLink could be an example. So the last time we've we've updated this cable code around 2002, so these updates that were really impressively done by our city departments and elected officials and members from the executive team and the council does a few things. Number one, it eliminates cable franchise district. And you may recall that prior to today we had five distinct districts and a cable provider would have one districts. And so by eliminating the districts, we're basically creating competition, allowing cable providers to basically build over one another such that you can have competition and competition and drive up quality, drive down costs, drive down price. And this is a good thing for the city. We've allowed or encouraged cable providers to build out, put their capital, put their plans into different communities where they are not operating now. And that's how we get the competition that we want. We've enhanced the call answering standards in reporting. So in other words, when you call in, many of you have gotten on to what's called an IVR, an interactive voice response unit. And we've looked at the customer response time and how long it takes you to get a live body and put in some very stringent requirements, such as a call wait time has to be limited to 3 minutes that a customer service representative has to be on the phone within 30 seconds. So these are some very aggressive, aggressive customer service requirements. That we're now posing. If a cable operator are to provide cable service in the city of Seattle, we've restricted long term exclusive contracts in multi-family dwellings or condominium units as an example, such that if you're a resident there and you can only have one service provider, we're making sure that that service provider can lock that customer into an exclusive contract, thereby giving the consumer choices. We've changed the name of one of our very important advisory boards, a Citizens Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board Sea Tower, changing its name to the Community Technology Advisory Board, recognizing strongly that many of the people we provide service, many of the people here are not technical citizens in the literal or legal sense and could be undocumented persons . And we certainly serve many communities and this is a advisory board representing the entire community. The the amendments that I read in earlier was some great work done by Councilmember Lakota and other community activists, making sure that as we stimulate competition, that we're not forgetting our underserved, not forgetting areas where there could be underrepresented communities. And we are encouraging and measuring and requiring that these cable providers provide service in underrepresented communities. I've said at another forum that I look at digital literacy and access to the Internet is almost a human right that without it people cannot get education, they cannot apply for jobs, and it becomes a critical, necessary service. And as we look at cable opportunities, we want to encourage this kind of innovation neighbors, such that they can get cable, they can get audio, they can get Internet, etc.. So this is these are good amendments, I think. And certainly I appreciate that Councilmember La Carte is leadership in this regard. So there you have it. Our updated advisory code, I rather our cable code and I want to thank Martha Lester for her outstanding work and central staff and the members of Do It, the director, Michael Matt Miller. Tony Perez. I don't know if people know that we do have representatives in our department that are nationally known for protecting the rights of consumers, nationally respected. And thank you for your work on this work. And I hope the Council supports this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Liccardo and Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 3: I want to thank Casper Herrell for taking on this big task. You re revising and updating our cable communications ordinance and the code. As he rightly pointed out, there are a number of outdated elements that needed to really catch up to our obligations and the technology available to us today the most. And I also want to thank him for working with me in updating the amendments so that we really focused in on what significant. Basically reaching a significant portion of low income neighborhoods would be by tightening it up and saying that we wanted actual metrics and that we wanted quarterly reports. We then can feel confident that we can introduce competition between the companies but at the same time not have them cherry pick the more well off neighborhoods and ignore the poor neighborhoods. That's what's critical to this legislation, I believe. And so by having the cable companies come to the city with quarterly reports, we can assure that our lowest income neighborhoods will not be ignored and will receive adequate cable coverage. So thank you very much. Customer Help you work on this?
Speaker 0: Councilmember So on.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Burgess and I thank council members Harlan Legato for their comments. As we would all agree, price gouging by cable companies, as you know, has reached a legendary status. And anybody who doctor will tell you that it is a real issue, not just in Seattle, but in every jurisdiction around the country. And any move to reduce the monopoly powers of these companies and to reduce prices is a step in the right direction. However, I'm generally against deregulation of cable companies that are already engaging in this egregious gouging. And I don't think that by itself, removing the regulation on the so-called cable districts will be sufficient to inspire the sort of competition that we're talking about, that we need to end monopolies that plague our city. And in reality, to do that, we will need to directly build municipal broadband. And I don't think that bribing cable cable companies with sweetheart deals is a solution. Having said that, I think a very strong amendment was introduced, you know, by council members to go down hard and thanks to all the consumer rights activist and technology activists who pushed for that amendment. I think that while I don't think that this will by itself result in competitiveness that we want, it does the amendment does address the problem of cherry picking customers, and that exacerbates the digital divide. And I supported the amendment. And with that amendment, I support the bill. If that amendment hadn't been there, I would have voted no. There's some good consumer protection. Improvements have been introduced in the bill, for example, requiring a live person on the phone no more than three after no more than 3 minutes of automated response. I think everybody will agree that that is a good thing. It's very frustrating to have automated phone conversations where your problems are not being addressed, but I also think that a lot is being left to directors rules. I mean, what happens if a cable corporation does not meet its low income requirements? I think the job of future councils is to ensure that the Office of Cable Communications monitors compliance and imposes penalties on cable corporations that fail to comply with the requirements of the amendment that was introduced. Just to let everyone know the language of the amendment, says the Office of Cable Communications, may also impose penalties for grantees failure to comply with the additional requirements. So I think that language will have to be strengthened in the future if we see failure to comply. But I will support the bill given the amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there questions or comments? Councilmember Harrell.
Speaker 5: I'll make some comments. I think that with support, I'm not sure. But in any event, it should be crystal clear. What we smartly did was we reserve the right for us, the Office of Cable Communications, to decide whether this these investors, these cable providers are investing in our communities. Another route could have been we didn't reserve that unilateral or unilateral right to make that determination. And again, we have national experts on making sure we protect the rights of the underrepresented. So I think that was outstanding negotiation and good legislation. We regulate cable television, not broadband, not fiber, not Internet in terms of Internet connectivity. So this is not dealing with, for example, the telephone service, which is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. So this is something we have control over. And I think, again, the spirit of this legislation is to to do exactly to create competition, not to comply with monopolies. We don't want monopoly. And I sort of tried to give the context that the whole spirit of this are to have multiple entries. And I would agree with Councilmember Stewart. So we don't want a monopoly in any of these providers. And that's the intent and that's the clear language of this legislation. And so I do ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll on council? Bill 118347 as amended.
Speaker 2: Clark I got in.
Speaker 5: Harrell, I.
Speaker 2: Licata, I. O'Brien Hi Rasmussen. I so want President Burgess High eight in favor. None opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items three and four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City’s Cable Communications Ordinance; amending Chapter 21.60 of the Seattle Municipal Code to reflect advances in technology and changes in federal law, to create a logical organization of the Chapter for ease of reference, to promote competition in cable services, to enhance consumer protection, and to reserve the City’s authority in a fluid regulatory environment; updating the membership requirements and duties of the Citizens’ Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board, renaming it the Community Technology Advisory Board, and moving the requirements and duties of the Board from Chapter 21.60 to Chapter 3.22; renaming Subtitle V of Title 21 and Chapter 21.60; amending Sections 3.02.125, 21.60.010, 21.60.020, 21.60.030, 21.60.040, 21.60.050, 21.60.060, 21.60.080, 21.60.090, 21.60.100, 21.60.110, 21.60.120, 21.60.130, 21.60.140, 21.60.150, 21.60.160, 21.60.170, 21.60.180, 21.60.190, 21.60.200, 21.60.210, 21.60.220, 21.60.240, 21.60.250, 21.60.260, 21.60.270, 21.60.280, 21.60.800, 21.60.820, and 21.60.830; repealing Sections 21.60.230, 21.60.290, 21 | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03232015_CB 118339 | Speaker 0: Please read item number five.
Speaker 4: The part of the Committee on the Central Waterfront Seawall and Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program Agenda Item number five Constable 118339 relating to the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority authorizing the Director of the Office of the Waterfront to enter into a development agreement to distribute 34 million bond proceeds and to convey certain real property located at 1901 Western Avenue. South Seattle, Washington. To excuse me. SEATTLE, Washington. Two The authority for the development of a mixed use project with public parking, low income housing, public open space, retail and commercial space, authorizing the acceptance of an easement from the authority on that property and authorizing the Director of the Office of Waterfront and Housing Director to execute documents and to take other actions. In connection with this project, the committee recommends this bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gordon.
Speaker 1: P.S. one North is a city owned property and with the viaduct coming down, it is an opportunity to see the land developed by the public for the public. The Pike Place Market is the right partner in this public project. It has been 40 years since the market has seen an upgrade, but this project is about so much more than just an expanded market. Through this project, the city in the market will develop more short term parking and affordable housing to downtown, as well as create public plazas and a connection from the Pike Place Market to the Waterfront. This is an exciting step for Seattle and a momentous vote for the council today. And I thank you so very much to the members of the committee for their support for Council Bill 118339.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Clerk I got in. HARRELL Licata, I.
Speaker 3: O'Brien All right.
Speaker 2: RASMUSSEN So on. President Burgess eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Please read item six. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority; authorizing the Director of the Office of the Waterfront to enter into a development agreement to distribute $34 million in bond proceeds and to convey certain real property located at 1901 Western Avenue, Seattle, Washington to the Authority for the development of a mixed-used project with public parking, low-income housing, public open space, retail and commercial space; authorizing the acceptance of an easement from the Authority on that property; and authorizing the Director of the Office of the Waterfront and the Housing Director to execute documents and take other actions in connection with this project. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03232015_CB 118340 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Please read item six.
Speaker 4: Three by the Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Agenda. Item number six Council Bill 118 340 Amending certain Mr. Code Sections 2.206. 160 and 22.21 4.0 75. To prohibit evictions of residents residential tenants from rental housing units if the units are not registered with the Department of Planning and Development as required by SNC. 22.2 14.0 40. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This item relates to a bigger policy and program change that the city instituted a couple of years ago, which is the requirement that if you run a rental housing business of however many units that might be small or large, you have to be registered with the city. And it is part of attesting and proving that rental properties in the city of Seattle are actually safe and habitable for people to live in. One of the things that was unfortunately not addressed at the time has to do with evictions, and none of us really like to talk about evictions, but they happen, and both parties should be well aware of their rights within that. One thing that we didn't note was that really in order to pursue an eviction, one needs to be legally registered and operating under the law within the city of Seattle in order to have protection of the just cause ordinance. So this proposed legislation prohibits a rental property owner from evicting a tenant from a rental housing unit. If the rental unit is not registered as required, not properly registered under the city's rental registration and inspection ordinance. Under the city's ordinance, owners of rental properties must be registered by a certain date, depending on how many units are in the building. So properties with ten or more units, they needed to be registered by September 30th of 2014. Properties with 5 to 9 rental units must be registered by March 31st of 2015. That's very soon for anybody who's listening. Properties with between one and four rental housing units. And that's really the larger the larger mass of owners in the in the city must be registered between June 15th and December of 2016. So again, this makes clear that in order to pursue an eviction, if you're supposed to be signed up with the rental registration and inspection ordinance , that you had to do that in order to be pursuing a just cause eviction in the city of Seattle. There we did have some helpful commentary from folks who unfortunately have experience with evictions, be it on the tenant side or the landlord side in court. And so we did work out an amendment that was forwarded by the Washington Multifamily Housing Association, and I appreciate their careful review of this. And there was the issue brought up that if really there's a health and safety issue coming up and if the if the property owner is pursuing a court level eviction and if it really is a health and safety issue, you don't want somebody to have to start over. You want to be able to help cure the problem quickly. So this amendment allows a rental owner who has filed an eviction lawsuit in court and who becomes aware that the rental unit is not registered under under REO to be able to pursue the eviction with just cause that they have time then to become registered and then to proceed with the lawsuit, they would not have to start over from square one again. It allows the owner to comply with you and then to proceed with the lawsuit without it being fully dismissed by the judge or the magistrate. The situation could arise in the early phases of implementation of the rental, registration and inspection ordinance. I think we have we have another report coming up soon, letting us giving us some idea of how many people we think are registered at this point. And so the numbers are climbing, but it is an education process. The committee recommends adoption of this change.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? Council members who want.
Speaker 6: I think this is a good step forward, and I'm happy to support this council bill to close the particular loophole as described by Councilmember Clark in the city, still in protections. And we all know this is happening rampantly throughout the city where there are more and more horror stories of tenants in Seattle losing their homes to the greed of developers. And just as an example of how much farther we need to go, my office I started organizing with a building full of tenants near Otello, and those tenants are being told that they will not have access to relocation assistance because of the kind of leases they sign. And they are being told by their landlord that they sign away their lives, their right to relocation assistance from the by the leases that were signed years ago. This particular law that we're voting on today is a good thing, but that's the the loophole that is allowing the landlord to exploit those tenants in Ontario will not be addressed. But this law and I raised this to point out that there are so many loopholes that are being used as use against tenants. And we need laws to close all of those loopholes and to protect tenants.
Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Clerk Darren Harrell. Licata O'Brien II Rasmussen. So while President Burgess. Ian Favre. None oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items seven and eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Seattle Municipal Code sections 22.206.160 and 22.214.075 to prohibit evictions of residential tenants from rental housing units if the units are not registered with the Department of Planning and Development as required by SMC 22.214.040. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03162015_CB 118329 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Any questions or comments? All those in favor of adopting the resolution vote? I opposed vote no. The resolution, as adopted in the chair, will sign it. The report of the Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee, please read item three.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda. Item number three Accountable 118 329 Related to water services of Seattle Public Utilities, revising certain water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers and amending sentiments to code subsection 21.0 4.4 40.8. In connection there with the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Seattle Public Utilities supplies water to 20 water utilities under long term contracts, and this includes a number of our suburban cities, water districts and the Cascade Water Alliance. And we enter into long term contracts with SPS customers, and they pay rates sufficient to fund improvements that specifically benefit their service area. The rates are updated periodically. They have not been updated since 2003, and this particular wheeling contract that we're now looking at entering into will really deal with increasing capital project to repair and recode a 2 million gallons storage tank, an updated allocation of the same storage tank and increasing pumping costs due to electrical power costs. The two impacted are going to be Olympic view and North City and our committee recommends do pass on this council bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Suzanne Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Ga Ga in Harrell High Lakota O'Brian.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Rasmussen.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: President Burgess High nine in favor not opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item for. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to water services of Seattle Public Utilities; revising certain water rates and charges for service to wholesale customers, and amending Seattle Municipal Code Subsection 21.04.440.E in connection therewith. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03162015_CB 118345 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Transportation Committee. Agenda Number five Council vote 118 345 vacating a portion of Ridgway, Southwest and other portions of government. Lot three in Section 13, Township 24, North Range three east of whom on the petition of the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and Placement under jurisdiction of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This council bill completes the vacation of a portion of Dale Ridgway, which was necessary for the upgrade of Fire Station 36. This is the fire station that's under the north part of the high level west Seattle Bridge. The fire station was upgraded as part of the fire facilities levy passed by Seattle voters in 2003. And improvements were made to the fire station, including seismic up seismic upgrades and additional space for the crews and the Marine specialty and tunnel rescue units. The improvements to fire station 36 required 4700 square feet of the Delbridge y right of way to be vacated. This vacation was approved by the Council in 2011. If all of the conditions were met in exchange, the conditions included that public benefits be provided by the facilities and police. What do we call FAA? FAA as fleets and administrative services? No. Finance Administrative Services has changed its name several times since I've been in office. Anyway, the FAA will provide public benefits in return for acquiring this right away for the fire station. That includes upgrades made to the central public facility, extra landscaping around the project, and providing green walls to reduce noise from the railroad and the freeway nearby and also to support natural drainage. The Department of Finance Administrative Services has satisfied all of those public benefits requirements and conditions for the project, and now the committee is recommending that the vacation be approved.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: So on. I beg your clerk. Gordon Harrell. Licata O'Brian. Rasmussen, President Burgess. Nine in favor. Nine oppose.
Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the Council? Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'd like to move to be excused for the meeting of Monday, May 11th second.
Speaker 1: It's moved in second and that Councilmember Clark be excused on May 11. All in favor indicate by voting. I opposed. You are excused. Colleagues, we will reconvene in 10 minutes at 240 as the Select Committee on the Central Waterfront. We are adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE vacating a portion of Delridge Way Southwest and other portions of Government Lot 3, in Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 3 East, W.M., on the petition of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services (Clerk File 311504); and placing it under jurisdiction of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03022015_CB 118334 | Speaker 0: And the committee, of course, recommends approval. Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of resolution 31572 vote I. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read item ten.
Speaker 1: Agenda item number ten Council Bill 11833 for granting a current development LLC permission to construct, maintain and operate below grade utility lines for a site specific heat conveyance system and other utilities under and across the North Street between six an avenue and seventh Avenue and under Cross Seventh Avenue, between North Street and Bunter Street for a ten year term renewal for two successive ten year terms specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions. The Committee recommends this bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. We also have another accompanying council bill that follows this one. And so I'll speak to both of those, if I may. These two bills grant term permits related to subterranean utility lines for a development project in the Denny Triangle. In September, the council gave conceptual approval to the permits if all the conditions are met. Our city departments report that the conditions have been met and they're recommending approval of these council bills. The utility lines are for the operation of a heat conveyance system where excess heat is drawn from the data center in the Western building to the new Amazon development across the street. The Amazon building will extract the heat and return cool water to the data center. The Council Bill 11 8334 requires an annual fee of $8,300 for the right to access to right away and council bill 8335 requires a $12,250 annual fee. Each term permit will be for ten years, renewable for two additional ten year extensions and they committee recommends approval. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: O'Brien by Rasmussen.
Speaker 3: So on.
Speaker 1: I beg your clerk Gordon Harrell Licata President Burgess.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 1: Nine in favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill sine passes and the chair will sign it please read item 11.
Speaker 1: Agenda item number 11 Council Bill 118335 Granting Eco District LLC Permission to construct, maintain and operate below grade utility lines for a site specific heat conveyance system under and along Virginia Street between fifth and a Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue and under an across Six Avenue between Virginia St Eleanor Street for a ten year term renewable for two successive ten year terms specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Rasmussen. As I said in my comments on the preceding legislation, this completes the work that was given conceptual approval last fall to allow the permission to cross the city. Right of way for the Amazon project. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien II.
Speaker 1: Rasmussen, Sudan. Bagshaw. Clarke. Gordon Harrell. Lakota High President Burgess I. Nine in favor. Nine oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item 12. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting Acorn Development LLC permission to construct, maintain, and operate below-grade utility lines for a site specific heat conveyance system and other utilities under and across Lenora Street between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue, and under and across 7th Avenue between Lenora Street and Blanchard Street; for a ten-year term, renewable for two successive ten-year terms; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_Res 31725 | Speaker 8: The report, the full council agenda item one, Resolution 317 25 Recognizing the acknowledging and thinking Miss Tan Tang in Chang and Ms.. Cao ten thanking for their significant contributions to support homeless services in the city of Seattle.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Factual Thank you very much. Over the past year, all of us have worked hard and we recognized the number of Seattle based companies that have been stepping up to fight homelessness with us. They have been our partners with charitable contributions, and I'm including Amazon and Starbucks around Mary's Place and others. And there is an individual that we also want to recognize, and she has been very generous and provided some major donations for us as Mrs. Calton at Fang Ming, Mrs. Cao Tian Fang Ming currently lives in Taiwan but previously lived in Seattle. She and her mother first donated money to the city in 1991 to support its work on homelessness. And since then, Mrs. Kotkin Fang Ming has made a series of unsolicited donations that have greatly benefited the city's work on homelessness. And most recently, her donations and her donations assisted with opening our Roy Street Homeless Shelter and helping get the city's Future Navigation Center up and running. And the city. It very much appreciates this. And we have a resolution that has been prepared to recognize and acknowledge and thank Mrs. and Fang Ming and her mother, Mrs. Tan, telling Chung for their significant contributions. We're deeply appreciative of their support for the work. We want to say thank you to the mayor's office, particularly a number of the individuals, including Hale Kim, that worked with us. And we just are grateful for our partners in helping us work with some of the most vulnerable in our community. So I have this resolution that where I am requesting and would appreciate your support in thanking these two women.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Baxter, any further comments? Okay. Those I'll move to adopt resolution 31725. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 1: Please read the short titles of items two, three and four.
Speaker 8: Each. And items two, three and four Council vote 118 875 Authorizing 2016 acceptance of funding from non city sources council bill 118 874 and many Ordinance 124 927, which adopted the 2016 budget, cancel 118882 related 2016 budget many ordinance 124 927. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION recognizing, acknowledging, and thanking Mrs. Tan, Teng In-Chung and Mrs. Kao Tan, Fang Ming for their significant contributions to support homeless services in The City of Seattle. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118882 | Speaker 8: Each. And items two, three and four Council vote 118 875 Authorizing 2016 acceptance of funding from non city sources council bill 118 874 and many Ordinance 124 927, which adopted the 2016 budget, cancel 118882 related 2016 budget many ordinance 124 927.
Speaker 1: Council Member Burgess.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. This first item Agenda Item two is an ordinance that exempts about 18 and a half million dollars in funding from external sources, primarily the state of Washington and the federal government. These funds cover a wide variety of grants, almost $5 million from the Federal Highway Administration to support the high capacity transit intermodal improvements on Madison Avenue corridor. $1.5 million from the Federal Highway Administration for escort and the 25th Avenue Northeast Paving Project $1.5 million from the Washington State Department of Commerce for a City Light project to install a energy microgrid at one of our community centers $1.5 million from King County for the enhanced 911 system and remodeling costs at the speedy communications center, $1.2 million from the Federal Department of Homeland Security for Citizen Preparedness and Outreach for Disasters. An intelligence analyst position special protective bomb suits for our bomb squad and night vision goggles and approximately $600,000 for the fire department to deal with structural collapses and rescue equipment. So this first ordinance allows the city to accept these external funds. And I would move. Adoption of Council Bill 1188753.
Speaker 1: Any further comments and moved in segment counts bill 118875. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill or.
Speaker 2: Where? Okay. Yes. O'Brian. Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. Herbold. Johnson.
Speaker 8: President Harrell I eight in favor.
Speaker 2: And unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and chair signed and I believe the other items have been read in the record. So you could just dove into the substance. Councilman Burgess, thank you.
Speaker 0: Item three on our agenda is the fourth quarter supplemental budget ordinance. This is a fairly routine piece of legislation that we deal with each quarter. It authorizes the expenditure of the money that we just accepted and also makes other adjustments in the 2016 city budget. These changes a total of just over $70 million. There's a long list of changes. I'll just highlight a couple of them. $8.5 million for the drainage wastewater fund, $6 million for the water funding expenditure for the Morse Lake Pump Plant Project. Approximately $4 million for police department overtime related to special events, professional standards and training, communications center operations and overtime for training of the increased hiring of new officers. $2.5 million in the Judgment and Claims Fund to take care of a settlement. $2.3 million in additional appropriations for the Seattle Center Fund. These costs will be reimbursed by event fees and the list goes on and on. I think again, there's nothing unusual here and it's fairly routine. So I would move adoption of Council Bill 118874.
Speaker 1: For the comments. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I will be voting in favor of this bill, but I do want to make note that I believe contained in it is a request from Espoo Seattle Public Utilities for additional funds for the bag, litter and needle pilot programs. This is on top of the second quarter supplemental allocation that the council made of $200,000. There's I have some some questions that I intend to follow up on as relates to this additional request. When we were in the budget discussions, we inquired about how much of the original $200,000 funding they had SPU had actually used for the for the purpose that we had identified. And we learned at that time that they had used $108,000 and that there was a remaining remaining $92,000 that was, quote, sitting with SPU and could be directed to similar purposes in to the 2017. So at that point during the budget discussions, it sounded like there was a carryover. So I just think that this is something that we need to look into a little further.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, any other comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Flores O'Brien. Bagshaw, Burgess. Gonzalez, Herbold Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Eight favorite.
Speaker 1: Unopposed. The bill passed and Cheryl signed it. Next item for Council member Burgess.
Speaker 0: This is agenda item number four. This is a piece of legislation that addressed addresses the compensation levels for certain city employees. This is the result of a collective bargaining agreement reached and adopted by the Council in Ordinance 118807. This now makes the budget adjustment to comply with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. And this involves the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 77. So I move adoption of council bill 11888 to second second.
Speaker 1: Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas O'Brian, Bagshaw, Burgess, Gonzalez, I Purple Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair will sign it. Please read agenda item six and seven together, please. I'm sorry. This region out of five.
Speaker 8: Agenda. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the 2016 Budget; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels due to changes in City employment compensation; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118881 | Speaker 8: Agenda.
Speaker 1: Marble.
Speaker 8: Agenda item five Constable 118881 really into housing amending sections 14.0 8.0 20 and point zero 57 Ms. for code to add definitions, describe exceptions and provide a compliance deadline for the first in time provision.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, Thank you.
Speaker 9: This legislation would enact two very limited technical amendments necessary to it to put into place the Council's original intent in passing this ordinance. There's been some confusion about this bill that it will delay the effective date. In fact, the first one time provisions. At that hour. Part of the source of income discrimination bill are still effective January 1st, but this amendment will allow Seattle Office for Civil Rights to employ a soft rollout, as we discussed both during the committee discussions and the full council discussions, and will give property owners 180 days to get into compliance with the legislation by July 1st. Another item that was important to council members during the discussion and passage of the bill was the desire to exempt accessory dwelling units or detached accessory dwelling dwelling units when the owner or person entitled to possession thereof maintains a permanent residence. We had included that intent as a recital, but did not in fact include it within the body of the bill. So the legislation in front of us is aimed to make the housing application process more objective as a tool to mitigate bias. And these technical amendments will ensure that the position, the legislation is fully implemented as originally intended. Just additional background. The Office of Civil Rights will be releasing its directors rules for the implementation of this ordinance next week. Director Powell, Patty Lolly, Brenda Barro and Jenny John have been leading this process. They've been working with both tenant advocates and property owners, including the Rental Housing Association, the Washington Multifamily Housing Association, the Urban League, solid ground, the tenants union. And they've held to open community public meetings to ensure that all stakeholders will have the resources necessary to comply with the law.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Any further comments? I'll move to accounts bill 118881 second. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Suarez O'Brian. Bagshaw, Burgess. Gonzalez, Purple Johnson.
Speaker 8: President Harrell. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and Shaw will sign it. Now let's go to an item six and seven together.
Speaker 8: Agenda item six and seven, click for three one 4039 for lots of division application of Robert Hardy to subdivide one unit lot into two unit lots at 3811 Fremont Lane North. This is a division of one unit lot within one and excuse me within a nine unit lots of division creating total ten unit lots cancel 118 876 | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to housing; amending Sections 14.08.020 and 14.08.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code to add definitions, describe exceptions, and provide a compliance deadline for the first in time provision. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118876 | Speaker 8: approving confirming the plot of Fremont on the AV in portions of the Northeast one fourth and Southwest, one fourth of section 18 township 25th North Range four east in King County, Washington Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: Welcome to another session of Rob Johnson's Planning Ladies and Zoning Nerd Sessions today council is considering final plat approval for a subdivision in the Fremont Urban Village. Subdivision of this site will facilitate the sale of ten townhomes that are currently under construction. Procedurally, the city reviews these in three steps. First, the Department of Construction and Inspections as START and other departments charged with providing services to the site review the preliminary plant and make a recommendation to the hearing examiner. Then the hearings examiner has an open public record. Public hearing reviews the plan and makes a determination. She held that review January 28, 2016. And then finally after those improvements have been made. Council takes action on the final plot plat to make sure the improvements are consistent with the hearings. Examiner's Results. This final step is necessary for the individual lots to be certified for sale, and that's the action that we're taking in front of us today. I'm happy to answer any questions, but if there aren't any, I'd recommend the council vote to put the court file on file and approve the councilman.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Johnson, are there any further questions or comments? Okay. So let's deal with the file first. I will move to file clerk file 314, two, three, nine, second. Those in favor of filing the file please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the files placed on file relative to the council. Bill 118876. I'll move to pass council bill 118876.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Suarez O'Brian, Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez, Purple Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Eight in favor and.
Speaker 1: Unopposed the bill passed in show assignment. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 8: The Report on Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item eight Appointment 530 Appointment of DeLand or as Director of the Office of Labor Standards. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. I thought there was one more bill. I'm falling behind. All right. Sorry, Dylan. You're doing great. I'm not doing so well. So, Dylan or has been serving as the director of the Office of Labor Standards since May 2015. He's responsible for ensuring that that office enforces Seattle's minimum wage, paid sick and safe time wage theft, the fair chance employment laws. Additionally, in the last year, Dylan was instrumental in helping craft the secure scheduling ordinance. As I think we all know, we are confirming him today because the Council's budget action acted upon the mayor's recommendation to make the Office of Labor Standards a standalone department that thus obligating the Council to. To confirm his. His appointment. In the past years, I've gotten to know Dylan. I know him to be thoughtful, responsive and very hardworking. I'm honored and excited to vote in favor of his appointment as the Director of Office of Labor Standards. Seattle's a national leader in workers rights, and I have every confidence that Dylan will do an exemplary job in upholding our values.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herbold, any additional comments or questions from our colleagues?
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien was sick at committee, so I apologize. Councilmember Herbold and Dylan, I would have I would be in that in favor of if I was a committee. And I apologize for missing that. But I get a chance to vote yes on you today.
Speaker 1: Excellent. So I hearing no other comments. Those in favor of confirming appointment 005. Three zero. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carry and the appointment is confirmed. And at this time we'd like to invite Dylan order to the podium and provide some brief remarks. We'll suspend the rules and brief. Someone said, brief Mr. Bush.
Speaker 0: I did. I can't.
Speaker 10: I just want to thank the mayor for nominating me for this position and to the council for supporting my confirmation. It has been an honor to serve in this position thus far and a very hard job. I will say to you and I really look forward to carrying the torch further. And as we enter this new chapter of our lives at the Office of Labor Standards. As I mentioned in the committee hearing, the work that we're doing here not only benefits the workers in the city of Seattle, workers and employers both, but affects communities across this country. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: You know, in all seriousness, I do want to say that you have a very challenging job and you've certainly risen to the occasion. It's comfortable I'm comfortable bringing a little levity only because I've gotten to know you and work with you and just extremely impressed with what you do. But I think it's very important to note that given the the complexity of the legislation, we're passing the political mood of our city in this country that jobs like yours and in particular your job, become increasingly important for the people of Seattle. And I have to say that we've we've picked the right person for the job. So I was going to say that during the remarks. But I want to see what you're going to say first. But thank you very much for for being here.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much, Councilmember.
Speaker 0: I really appreciate it with grace.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 10: Thank you so much. And I really look forward to working with all of you as we move this work forward. Excite. Thank you.
Speaker 1: If you please read the next agenda item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE approving and confirming the plat of “Fremont on the Ave” in portions of the Northeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in King County, Washington. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118869 | Speaker 8: Agenda item nine cancel 1188698. Release Seattle Public Utilities Authorizing Director Sale Public Utilities to acquiring existing land and all of the necessary property rights in the Taylor Creek area. At ten zero 18 Rainier Avenue, South Seattle, Washington for addressing the identified need for permanent and temporary construction easements for the new alignment of the culvert crossing Rainier Avenue South and to execute except in record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Director to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City, placing the conveyed real properties under the jurisdiction South Public Utilities and ratifying confirming certain prior acts the committee recommends to pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: All right. This is an exciting piece of legislation about failing culverts. This project is scope to address a failing culvert and localized flooding in the Rainier Beach neighborhood by constructing a restoration improvement project on the lower Taylor Creek area in the Rainier Beach neighborhood. A new culvert will be constructed under Rainier Avenue South to protect the road from structural failure caused by erosion and to remove a barrier to fish passage in lower Taylor Creek. Fish Passage improvements are part of an agreement the city made with the Michael Shute tribe as part of the Mapes Creek Project. And to implement the project, the city will need to purchase properties adjacent to the restoration area, including the new property described in the ordinance to align the plan restoration improvements with the new culvert as it requires a permanent easement at 118 Rainier Ave South in the ordinance includes new appropriations of $475,000. Since funding for the acquisition was not included in the 2016 approved budget, central staff have reviewed the ordinance and found no issues of significance.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold, any further comments? If not, please, father, the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas O'Brian Bank John Burgess Gonzalez Herbal Johnson President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 8: Eight in favor.
Speaker 2: And unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and chair was Senate. Please read Agenda Item Number ten.
Speaker 8: Agenda Item Town Council Bill one one, 1873 Changing the name of the Seattle Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Commission to the Seattle Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Queer Commission amending Chapter 3.14 and Section 15.50 2.005 occurred to reflect the name change. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire by negotiation land and all other necessary property rights in the Taylor Creek area at 10018 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, Washington, for addressing the identified need for permanent and temporary construction easements for the new alignment of the culvert crossing Rainier Avenue South, and to execute, accept, and record deeds and convenient documents and agreements deemed by the Director to be necessary to this transaction on behalf of the City; placing the conveyed real properties under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118873 | Speaker 8: Agenda Item Town Council Bill one one, 1873 Changing the name of the Seattle Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Commission to the Seattle Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Queer Commission amending Chapter 3.14 and Section 15.50 2.005 occurred to reflect the name change. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I worked with the LGBT Commission, LGBT Commission at the time to work to change the commission name to include the Q for queer. It's important for the commission that represents this community and the name they believe should reflect the current and inclusive term. The word queer was used once upon a time as a demeaning description. But starting in the late eighties, queer scholars, activists, community members and workers began to return, reclaim the term, to establish a sense of community and to specifically assert a distinct, politicized identity as people who are civically engaged. The City of Seattle advocates for greater awareness of discrimination faced by young people who use queer as a positive identity in which to feel empowered to politically impact their communities. The city values being an open, inclusive city for all of its residents. And with this legislation, the commission's name also reflects our values.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. And any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas O'Brian, Baker, Burgess, Gonzalez, Herbal, I Johnson President Harrell.
Speaker 1: Ranked.
Speaker 8: Eight in.
Speaker 2: Favor and opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number 11. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE changing the name of the Seattle Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Commission to the Seattle Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) Commission; amending Chapter 3.14 and Section 15.52.005 of the Seattle Municipal Code to reflect the name change. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118878 | Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number 11.
Speaker 8: Agenda item 11 Constable 118 878 relating to Seattle Public Utilities Department authorizing the Director of Public Utilities to grant the City of Canmore Ltd permission to construct and managing Non-Motorized public recreation trail on a portion of utility property in the torch pipeline. Right of way. And authorizing the director to execute an agreement for this property use committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 9: This legislation authorize Seattle Public Utilities to grant the City of Kenmore Limited permission to construct and manage a non-motorized public recreational trail on a portion of space property in the Holt River pipeline. Right of way. The agreement would allow the city of Kenmore to construct, maintain and manage a recreational trail as long as operation does not interfere with use of space water supply system up to a total of 40 years. SPU is not charging a use fee for the agreement. Instead, the city of Kenmore will maintain the trail and drainage improvements. It is constructing and mow the grass along the entirety of the pipeline section, right of way affected by the agreement. Currently, grass mowing is performed by SPU crews. Without this agreement, the City of Kenmore would not be able to construct the recreational trail. Council central staff have reviewed the legislation and found no issues of significance.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas O'Brien. Bagshaw. Burgess.
Speaker 8: Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Herbold, I. Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 8: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Will pass and chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number 12.
Speaker 8: Agenda Item 12 Equipment 512. Appointment of Jonathan. Jonathan C Nichols as Member Seattle Human Rights Commission for Term two July 22nd, 2017. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 1: Council Member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 9: Jonathan is a mayoral appointment to the Seattle Human Rights Commission. He has received his law degree from the Seattle University School of Law. He works at the Washington State Attorney General's Office in the Social Health Services Division, and he's also worked in the Seattle City Attorney's Office Criminal Division.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Please read agenda items 13 through 19.
Speaker 8: Agenda Items 13 through 19. Appointments for 94, 54, three, four, 55 and 557. Every appointment and appointment of Nicole John Silvers and Jennifer a Ceasar as members Seattle Music Commission for Term two August 31st, 2019. Appointments of Katherine Harris White and Toni Kuehl as member of Seattle Music Commission for Term two August 31st, 2019. Appointment of Shirley Jane Metcalf as member Seattle Music Commission for Term two August 31st, 2018 and reappointment of John Roderick as members Yellow Music Commission for Term two August 31st, 2019. The committee recommends all these appointments be confirmed from Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. This will be the last time that we have to appoint so many commission members to the Seattle Music Commission all at one time. You may recall earlier in the year, we passed legislation to change the the commission appointments to be staggered appointments. Just a couple of words about each of the folks before us. Nicole is a mayoral reappointment. She is a speaker, writer and social worker. Jennifer is a new mayor appointment in 2012. Jennifer founded Rogue Octopus, a music licensing licensing company that focuses on Northwest artists and labels to help land film, TV and commercial placements. She was also at Sub Pop Records for 16 years. Jerry Everard is a council appointment, a new council appointment, a founder of the Crocodile Cafe and Moz, which is now New Moz, the Rendezvous Jukebox Theater. And he served on the board of the VR project one wheel, bumper chute, Capitol Hill housing, among other appointments. Katherine Harris White is a new mayoral appointment. Kathryn is an actor, singer songwriter, was in dissatisfaction and now appears on both the Shabazz Palaces albums. And Toni Kuehl is a new council appointment. Tony is vice president of A&R for Sub Pop. Shirley Metcalf is also a new council appointment. She is the host of the KEXP show Audio Oasis, and she has begun curating a quarterly Northwest music video showcase for KEXP and the Northwest Film Forum called Video Oasis. And then finally, John Roderick is a mayoral reappointment musician, writer, podcaster and frontman for the band The Long Winters. A writer for the Seattle Weekly. And his written work has also appeared in Rolling Stone, L.A. Weekly and the Stranger.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilor Herbold. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read agenda items 20 through 22.
Speaker 8: Gender Items 2322 appointments 556 through 558. Appointment of Sean Buckley and Cindy Laws as member of the Commission for People with Disabilities for Term two April 32, 1118. Usually I apologize. I read the wrong name. Excuse me. Re-appointment of Chandra Benito as a member of Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities for term to April 30th, 2017, appointments of Sean L Bickley and Cindy Laws as members Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities return to April 30th, 2018. The committee recommends these opinions be confirmed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Chandra is a deaf Seattle native who works in the field of disability and deaf advocacy and gender based violence advocacy. She previously served as the 2015 2016 Gaming Get Engaged member on the commission, and she earned her bachelor's of social work from Seattle University and her master's in social work from the University of Washington. Shaun is a new mayoral appointment. He is a direct support professional with the HRC of King County. He was project coordinator and self advocate with the Agency of Texas and Texas advocates working with local and state self advocate leaders to plan and implement Community Act advocacy activities. Cindy is a new mayoral appointment. Cindy currently acts as the president of Purple Mountain Advocates. She was former executive director of the Washington State Residential Care Council of Adult Family Homes, and she earned her B.A. in Science and International Relations from the University of Washington.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further comments those in favor of confirming the appointments vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read Agenda number 23.
Speaker 8: Agenda Item 23 Appointment 559 reappointment and later see Erhard as member of Woman's Commission for Term two July 1st, 2018. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 9: Cast member Herbold Thank you. Laura is a path monitoring and evaluation officer for the Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Nutrition Global Program. She earned her B.S. from the University of Washington in general biology. She holds a master's of public health from Emory University and she is a merrill reappointment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further comments those in favor of confirming the appointment to vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Please read the next agenda item and you may read the short title report.
Speaker 8: The Planning Lens and Zoning Committee Agenda 24 Council 118 854 Relating to land use and zoning expressing City Council's ten for implementation of Chapter 23.58 B the committee recommends the bill passes amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Public Utilities Department; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to grant the City of Kenmore limited permission to construct and manage a non-motorized, public recreational trail on a portion of utility property in the Tolt Pipeline Right of Way; and authorizing the Director to execute an agreement for this property use. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118800 | Speaker 8: Agenda item 27 Council vote 118880 0 million two. Satellite Department Authorizing and directing. The General Manager and chief executive officer of satellite to execute a interlocal agreement with Kalispell Tribe of Indians. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Councilmember worries the Council bill authorizes the Interlocal agreement between City Light and the Kalispell tribe. The tribe is adjacent to an overlap in the Boundary Project, which generates a large portion of electricity. City Lights Sells. This is an innovative aspect to this agreement that I want to highlight for the council I'm channeling. So on here and me, the Kalispell Career Train Center, owned and operated by the tribe, was developed to train members of the tribe in the community, in the fields of mental, mental metal fabrication, welding, carpentry, computer design, production in line assembly, shipping and receiving marketing, job readiness, safety and work ethics. It's basically a workforce center since the Kalispell Career Training Center benefits Seattle City Light in the form of creating skilled, diverse and stable workforce, City Light will continue to pay towards its continued development and the tribal workforce development. Through this program. The City Committee recommends passage or yea passage of this bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Suarez O'Brian. Bagshaw Burgess. Gonzalez High Johnson President Harrell High seven in favor not opposed the.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate please read agenda items 28 through 31.
Speaker 8: Agenda Items 28 through 31 appointments of 550 through 533 Appointment of Thomas Buchanan as members. City Light Review Panel for Term two September three, 2018. An appointment of Leon Garnett as members City Review Panel for Term two April 11th, 2018. The committee recommends these appointments be confirmed and appointment of Patrick Linsky as member Seattle City Light Review Panel for Term two September 30th, 2019. The committee recommends this appointment be confirmed with the Divided report, with Councilmembers Juarez and Gonzalez in favor and councilmember somewhat opposed and appointment of John Putz as members of El Satellite Review Panel for Term two September 30th, 2019. The committee recommends this appointment be confirmed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: This item in the next three or appointments to the City Light Review Panel. The Review Panel is a volunteer position that reviews City Light, strategic plan, policies and finances. All its members are extremely hardworking, and we appreciate all of their willingness to serve. Each position on the review panel is reserved for different city light interests. Tom Buchanan is nominated to fill the review panel position reserved for residential customers being besides being a residential customer, he's an environmental activist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, who is engaged with Energy, Environment Committee and City Light in the past. The committee recommends confirmation of this appointment.
Speaker 1: Would you like to read them all?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 2: Is are any of the people here today? Nope. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: Second is Leon Garnett. Leon Garnett is nominated to fill the review panel position reserved for low income customers representatives. He is the chief operations officer for Center Stone, which provides services and advocacy to low income City Light customers, including with their low income Home Energy Assistance Program. The committee recommends the appointment number 30. Patrick Tobolowsky. Patrick Grabowski is nominated to fill the review panel position reserved for industrial customer representatives. He's a representative of Nucor Steel, which is one of Citylights largest customers and was recommended to this position by the Manufacturing Industrial Council. Again, the committee recommends council confirmed his appointment and last is item number 31. Mr. John Putz. John Putz is nominated to fill the At-Large review panel position. He's from D5. Just want to add that which is not reserved for any interest. He's a research scientist for the Energy Authority and has extensive experience with energy trading markets. The committee recommends council confirmed this appointment and I would like to reiterate that the Energy and Environment Committee appreciates all the members of the City Light Review panel and all the time they volunteer on behalf of City Light customers. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further comments? Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 0: I have a question. I note here that there was a no vote on Patrick Tobolowsky. Correct. Was there is a specific reason or issue there?
Speaker 1: Excuse me.
Speaker 2: Well, Councilmember Sawant had some issues with Mr. Taberski as well as Mr. Purton, I believe, but on the no vote. I don't know what to share. Except that she. Just opposed his appointment.
Speaker 0: Did did she in committee, did she articulate what the objection was? Do you remember?
Speaker 9: She she did articulate what her opposition was in the course of our Energy and Environment Committee. She took issue with Mr. Dombroski environmental record and commitment to the City Lights Department, the city lights, ongoing commitment to climate change efforts based on some information that she found in his background. It's related to an affiliation with a organization whose name escapes me at the moment. But she had she had concerns about his environmental record and in the context of an organizational affiliation and made note of those remarks, made note of of her objections during the course of the committee.
Speaker 2: But we should add that Nucor, in the chair of the Manufacturer Industrial Council, sent you, Councilmember Bridges in December of 2015, a lengthy letter recommending him in highlighted all his achievements, which I read into the record.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 9: We also received a letter from another organization that is I think it's Puget Sound Keepers that sent in a letter of recommendation and endorsement of Mr. Trump, Alaska's nomination to the city review panel as well.
Speaker 2: Is there anything else, Mr. Burgess?
Speaker 0: No, thank you. You answered my question. Actually, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know that. Thank you, everybody. I've got a real good. I'm younger. Wow. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we do. Confirmed the appointments are not confirm. I did want to just give some context on this particular review panel because some of us were instrumental in setting it up. I think it's critically important that this panel. They are. First of all, we don't we we want diversity of opinion. We want diversity of values. We want those who are advocating for low income customers, high usage customers, environmental advocates, etc.. It's not necessary to have an identical view from every person on the committee. In fact, that sort of defeats the purpose. But most importantly, they should have access to the same information that we have relative to costing and pricing and policies. Because one of the biggest complaints of the customer base, whether it was small, medium or large, was that we weren't sharing the information. We were making costing and pricing decisions and rate decisions sort of in a vacuum. So this review panel becomes critically important because a lot of the organizations they represent and the constituents they serve, they're very livelihood depends on us having a very smart and effective utility. And so I'm glad to see these appointments made. To be candid, these were overdue. We do not want empty seats on this critical panel. So I'm very pleased to see that the committee stepped up and got some folks here that seem to be of high caliber on this review panel. But I do not think this a panel we want to treat lightly at all.
Speaker 2: I would just add, Councilmember our president, Harold, that all four gentlemen appeared in their confirmation packets were quite complete and very impressive. So and again, it's a volunteer, as you know, because you created it. It's a volunteer panel. And all of these gentlemen are quite, you know, educated in their field. And so we're lucky to have them.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. The short titles.
Speaker 8: Please report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Agenda 32 Constable 1188 780 relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation, the committee recommends to pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the City Light Department; authorizing and directing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118790 | Speaker 8: Please report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Agenda 32 Constable 1188 780 relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation, the committee recommends to pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So this item in the next item, both deal with surplus properties that are owned by the city. The specific item in front of us, the address is at sorry, 900 Broad Street. So it's if you look at the attachment one on page six, I believe you can see location map, but it's essentially between Westlake and nine. So just and just on the north side of Broad Street across from South Lake Union Park there, it's a little triangle parcel. I believe there's a small building on there that currently has, I think, a coffee shop on there. This parcel is about 7700 square feet in size. And as of 2014, its estimated value was between 1.1 million and $1.8 million. And the in public comment a committee and. And again today, you all heard concerns from folks about the process we are supposed to go through for property dispositions and whether the city did that appropriately or not. I have had since committee meeting I have had I mean, my staff and I have had conversations back and forth with both FASB and the mayor's office on this. I have been convinced that they did follow the letter of the law that the council set up. I do not believe that they did the best job of doing the community outreach that I believe was included in the intent of the law. I have received assurances that at future dispositions, FASB will be both present at committee hearings because they were the ones that could have answered some of the questions that we raised and that from the mayor's office specifically that they can do a better job of outreach and engaging community members. The the idea here being and we've seen this elsewhere when we do surplus properties is that there may be things that we miss when we're thinking about best use of these parcels before we sell them. And if the community broadly isn't aware that we're going through this process, they don't have the time to come forward with those suggestions. As you all are aware of, the the disposition process requires City to go through a number of steps. The first thing we do is, well, one of the first things we do is ask internally as to whether other city departments have need or use for these properties. And that was done here on this parcel. There was not that need. We also look at other public agencies outside the city of Seattle. Again, there was not interest in this property through that process. And so it is at the point where we are prepared to dispose of it, as is now.
Speaker 2: On.
Speaker 0: The corner. It's it's 7700 square feet. So I don't know what that is. It's I can probably find the dimensions here and. Yeah. 7700 square feet. It's zoned as some 85.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Where you finish, customer Ambra.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I imagine folks have some questions here, and so I'm prepared to have a discussion with that.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you very much. I'm always concerned when neighbors step up and say that the public engagement plan was not followed, that there are gaps in our process. This is a small parcel. If you said 7700 square feet. But in downtown District seven, South Lake Union, we don't have a lot of trees to spare. So I would really like to know more about what the plans are with this. And I don't know how strongly you feel or if there is a a need to move forward. But I would like to have this removed back to committee for further discussion and consideration.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'll say that the no trees on this particular parcel in this one has some on it, but I'm open to that suggestion. Council President, City Council.
Speaker 1: We'll have some discussion and see what we how we want to proceed. Councilmember Gonzalez has a question or concern.
Speaker 9: And I don't really have any questions. I'm just going to make a note of how I'm going to vote on this one and the next bill. So I'm going to to the extent that these move forward today, I'm going to vote no on both agenda item 32 and 33 for four different reasons that have already been articulated both from the dais and from from public commentators today. So I'm not persuaded that there were necessarily procedural irregularities in the in the process. But I am concerned with what I think is a critical policy question in the context of suppressing our properties as a whole. So as we can recall from our budget process recently, we agreed to provide $400,000 in what I'm calling the Hope to Home Project, which essentially funds feasibility studies to be able to evaluate and survey all public lands that are available and suitable for affordable housing. We also funded a $29 million housing bond issuance fund, again for affordable housing, and I am concerned about the lack of synergy between those budget actions and and those budget actions and what is what we're doing here today in terms of selling what might be available land and I and I read the reports of the departments related to a what appeared to me to be a bit of a conclusory statement as to the unsuitability of these parcels for affordable housing. And I just believe that and I'm not persuaded that that's the case. And I believe that this is a loss of a potential opportunity. And while the Executive has given us some assurance that it will be taking a closer look at the surplus disposition policies, I find that those assurances are currently insufficient as it relates to timing, the scope of the work and of course what happens in the interim until those policies are evaluated and revised. Simply put, I believe there's a critical policy question here, and I believe that that question is should the city continue to dispose of its surplus properties when there is an affordable housing crisis? Acknowledgment that our surplus property policies are not aligned with the city's affordable housing strategies and apparent alignment with our recent budget actions related to city owned property that could be used for affordable housing. I think the answer to that question is no. And so I'm going to vote accordingly to the extent that these items advance in today's meeting, and I'm going to continue to vote no on the disposition of surplus properties within the city until this policy question is addressed and answered
Speaker 1: . Very good. Any further comments, Councilman Bryant? I'm sure you'll have something to say. So.
Speaker 0: Sure. Councilmember Gonzales, I appreciate you. Your points there. And the kind of centering the work around affordable housing, I think is something that we all share. And I think that's a good point. I, I believe in the conversations I've had that both these parcels were looked at for affordable housing and a variety of reasons why they didn't go forward. But I along the lines of Councilmember Baker's request, I would be more than happy to support a motion to pull this back and have colleagues have a chance to get those questions answered directly. I mean, if there's a sliver of a chance that these parcels could be used for affordable housing, in a way, let's take another few weeks and and be certain about that.
Speaker 9: I think. Can can I just add to that just if I may? I think I think the the the issue is I read it from the email that Steve Lee sent to your office. Related to this particular issue that I'm highlighting is that the existing under the existing policies related to how we surplus are, how we dispose our surplus properties and how we come to that determination inherently result in an evaluation that will lead to the to the same conclusion that we got. That's part of today's package. So I'm I'm fine with holding it. I'm just concerned that we're going to end up with the same answer because we're we're undergoing the evaluation of whether or not the suitability of this property for affordable housing is appropriate or not is under the same set and same rubric of the set of policies that that currently exist. And so I'm just concerned that we're going to get to the same answer because we're using the same policies and the facts fundamentally haven't changed. I'm flagging a bigger, broader issue related to whether those policies need to change in order to better reflect what I think this Council and what I think the mayor's commitment is to seizing on these opportunities to develop more affordable housing through our Office of Housing and or nonprofit providers. And so so I'm fine with holding it. I'm just I'm just not optimistic that holding it will yield a different answer in terms of whether or not the property will actually be suitable for affordable housing if that evaluation continues to be done under the same analytical, analytical framework that exists right now.
Speaker 0: I understood and I, I really appreciate that clarification. My interpretation of the framework, very broad interpretation of the framework on how we look at affordable housing is the types of projects that the Office of Housing is comfortable. Funding is often at the scale of 50 to 100 unit apartment buildings, which require a certain site condition, a certain lot size, and agree that that some of the criteria for these may just be that they don't fit in that rubric but may not make sense. You're not the only one that's expressed concerns. Councilmember Baker has. Councilmember Herbold had to leave, but she's had some concerns. And so I think I would support moving this, holding this till we're about to go into recess for a couple of weeks, as I think a lot of folks around here, we could do January 9th or the well, I think the third we won't have we wouldn't have a lot of time to do anything between.
Speaker 1: Be sure to describe what our options are before we make a formal motion. We can refer we can hold it for a date certain, of course, and pick that date and agree on that. Or we can simply refer back to the committee, at which point the committee could figure out the timeline, which I think would be a recommended preferred action in this situation. That may give Councilmember Gonzales some opportunity to talk about the more global issue on how we dispose of property without having to change that a few times. Katherine Burgess does want to speak.
Speaker 0: I have a question for Councilmember O'Brien, and I don't know if you know the answer, but it's my understanding that the executive represented to us that this these two parcels were were timely in front of us to be disposed of and had budget implications. Do you know about that or. And I'm sorry, I just haven't. Yeah, no, that's fair. In the background, we did ask the question, there was a strong sense of urgency we received on moving this forward, but I did not hear a specific I believe the funding that would generate from this is intended to go towards paying back a loan. I don't know if it's an interphone loan or other type of loan on work in South Lake Union. I believe on Mercer my sense was, but I can't speak specifically was that without this there are other mechanisms, it's just kind of a hassle. Okay. And I think I think if I may.
Speaker 3: I also believe if I'm not wrong, Councilmember Brown, that both of these were purchased using gas tax funds. And therefore, it's a requirement that the money go back into a road usage expenditure that we can't use these resources for things like homelessness or affordable housing or other issues. We've got to put it back into the roadway account.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that is accurate. I mean, no insight about the revenue side of this, but it is it is heavily restricted to what's the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1818. Thank you, Councilmember. So if it's not, if, if we don't know of a specific time sensitive reason that we have to act today, then I would favor sending it back to committee, which then gives the committee flexibility as to when to bring it forward or how to address these other issues yet.
Speaker 9: And again, you know, I think I acknowledge the 18th Amendment issues. We may end up with the same answer I am flagging, not necessarily a policy question specific to these exact pieces of property in these parcels. I am flagging a broader policy question and I know that the mayor has already announced an intent to look at. And our policies around how we surplus property based on the city's value and priority of affordable housing. I just I'm a little nervous that we're advancing this these this this question today without giving ourselves the opportunity, without giving the executive the opportunity to really take a look at what those changes should be and how those changes could impact either these parcels or much more importantly, future parcels down down the road. And and because I don't I didn't see a sense of urgency around acting now. I would I would strongly favor holding these and giving ourselves the time and the executive the time that they need in order to be able to take a take a harder look at those policies in and equip us with the ability to make more strategic decisions.
Speaker 2: So if I can just quickly follow up, you said to hold them. My recommendation is to refer it back to committee so we can spend some time there. Are you okay with that? I'm sorry to refer to refer back to the committee.
Speaker 9: I'm fine with the referral.
Speaker 1: So it's a closed debate. I will move to refer. I'll take them separately. 32 and 33. I'll move to refer agenda item number 32 Council Constable 118790. Back to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. All those in favor of that motion say I, I, those opposed. Well, no, the ayes have it. I'll also make a motion to refer agenda item number 33. Constable 118791 back to the Transportation and Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Any comments? All those in favor of the motion. Vote I, I oppose vote no. Okay, so we'll send those back to committee and we'll also do some work around Councilmember Gonzalez's larger issue. And thank you for flagging that and bringing that up, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 9: I just want to thank the bank councilmember, Brian, for being receptive to to to my concerns. I really I really do appreciate your willingness to work through it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And if I could just say a couple more things. I know I'm the one standing between us and recess at the moment here, but the I believe there there was some urgency for it, but I don't think it was like this has to absolutely happen today. And frankly, a committee, the executive wasn't there to make that case known to us or to the public. And so we're going to operate on the assumption that it's not ultimately critical. And so I think this is fine, but we can send the signal that in the future, if these are really timely, please be explicit on that | Council Bill (CB) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation jurisdictional property located in Lot 1, Block 81, Lake Union Shore Lands, in King County, Washington, commonly referred to as 900 Broad Street (“Property”) and declaring it as surplus to the City’s needs; removing the limited access highway purposes property designation; authorizing the sale of the Property for fair market value through an open and competitive sales process managed by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Transportation, or the Director’s designee, to execute all necessary documents to accomplish the sale of the Property; and designating the proceeds from the sale. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118791 | Speaker 0: And frankly, a committee, the executive wasn't there to make that case known to us or to the public. And so we're going to operate on the assumption that it's not ultimately critical. And so I think this is fine, but we can send the signal that in the future, if these are really timely, please be explicit on that . So we know the issues, the broad issue around housing, too. I in the interim, I would hope that Councilman Gonzalez, you and I can connect with the Office of Housing to talk about that, because if, in fact, the framework for looking at affordable housing needs to adjust a bit, then I think we'd want to consider putting these on the back burner for some time so that there's a possibility to use them as affordable housing in the future. But I, I want everyone off the housing to have a chance to make that case to you about why they do it. And we may end up that we're just in different places policy wise, but I don't think either of us know enough about that yet to do that. So let's take a little more time to do that.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I would also suggest we take advantage of this opportunity. I want to thank the community members for coming out and voicing your opinion. Their did I heard you loudly and clearly by saying we perhaps we followed the letter of law, but perhaps not at Spirit or its intent. So maybe we can take advantage and make sure we're listening to all voices in and type the have a better process as well. So thank you for your public testimony. Is there any further business to come coming for the Council? Our next meeting will be on January 3rd, 2017 at 2:00. And everyone have a happy holiday season. And if there's no further business, we will stand adjourned.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You. | Council Bill (CB) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation jurisdictional property located in Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Eden Addition No. 2 to the City of Seattle, commonly referred to as 911 Aurora Avenue North (“Property”) and declaring it as surplus to the City’s needs; removing the limited access highway purposes property designation; authorizing the sale of the Property for fair market value through an open and competitive sales process managed by the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; authorizing the Director of Transportation or the Director’s designee to execute all necessary documents to accomplish the sale of the property; and designating the proceeds from the sale. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118817 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Energy Environment Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 817 relating to residential rental properties amending section 7.20 4.0 20.0 3.0 40.0 50.0 60.0. 79.0 84. Code Avenue. Section 7.20 4.0. 35.30 6.0. 38.1 10.1. 20.1. 30.1. 40.1. 50.1. 60.1. 70.1 80.1. 90.202. Ten To the Seattle Ms. Code and repealing Section 7.20 4.09 of the CMC, all to limit the amount of security deposits and nonrefundable moving fees to allow residential tenants to be security deposits, nonrefundable moving fees and last month's rent installments and due submission for Senate provisions for Chapter 7.24, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The way I'd like to proceed is I'd like to turn to Councilmember Safwat first to describe the base legislation. And then Councilmember Brian would like to say something.
Speaker 2: Before or after disclosure.
Speaker 0: Oh, we'll do that after. After I finish this. And then customers want right after. Your base legislation. We have two amendments for consideration. I'll turn to Council Member Johnson and then Councilmember Herbold. And in that order. Okay. And before council members want you to introduce the legislation, reintroduce it. Actually, council member Bryan has a disclosure that he'd like to make.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just want to disclose that I am also a landlord and I'll be voting on this.
Speaker 0: And that is consistent with our ethics rules. And thank you for that disclosure. Councilman Brian, Councilmember Stewart, the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Brian. How I'm excited to introduce again this ordinance that would limit the exorbitant move and fees. The tenants are expected to pay in this city off skyrocketing rents. The laws of the state overwhelmingly are stacked against renters, particularly the state ban on rent controlled. However, as tenants get more organized locally, we are starting the process of winning individual tenant rights that will add up to a significant tenant bill of rights in this city. This Council bill limits nonrefundable fees to only those explicitly mentioned under state law limits, security deposits and nonrefundable fees to no more than one month's rent, which most landlords do anyway, and most importantly, allows tenants to pay the security deposit and last month's rent on a payment plan. That final aspect of the bill will allow many tenants to overcome a substantial hurdle that they face in finding housing. You've heard today and in previous testimonies, domestic violence survivors telling you about why this will directly be helpful to them. And you've heard a lot of testimony from renters in general. And for those who like decisions to be based on data, as I do. Washington Community Action Network's survey of tenants found the move in fees to be the biggest obstacle to finding housing in the city. Nationwide, part reason studies over 50%, which is half of America, says they have less than $10,000 in their checking and savings accounts. So imagine having to come up with 4000, 5000 or $6,000 for moving in to an apartment. In reality, while extremely important for tenants, this is an extremely mild legislation. Landlords will still get the security deposit and last month's rent just a little later than they have gotten it in the past. And keep in mind, by state law, they should be putting that in an escrow account and not touching it until the tenant moves out anyway. However, however, while this legislation is entirely reasonable, that has not stopped the lobbyist from the ultra conservative Washington Multifamily Housing and Rental Housing Association who have opposed.
Speaker 6: Years values now.
Speaker 3: Who have opposed almost every tenant right past, both by the city and by the state. And have put real.
Speaker 0: Please, a loudspeaker to speak.
Speaker 3: And have put real resources into trying to derail this bill, as they have with every other tenant. Right. Both at the city and state level. I know that many today of those have said that they are not corporate property owners, they are friendly neighborhood landlords. If that is so, then you should be supporting tenants rights. In reality. In reality, while representing a tiny minority of our city societies, these landlord organizations have money and power. They contribute the maximum contributions to the election campaigns of many of the city council members and the mayor. And they have used that money and power to convince the majority of this council to send this ordinance back to committee when it came to full council a couple of months ago. Council members have promised renters at that meeting that full council, when they send it back to committee, that they would not water it down. And the I urged members of the public to hold the council accountable to that promise. Council members will have to weigh the interests of tenants whose risk is homelessness in the midst of skyrocketing rents and a homeless epidemic against the interests of some landlords whose risk is their investment at a time when there is no indication that that investment is in any danger. I know which side I'm on. I do want to thank specifically those property owners who came today and in other meetings to support the legislation. And I've challenged other landlords to do the same. I also want to thank all the tenants that they have come to know. What is their fifth city council meeting to testify in favor of the legislation and to share your important stories? Your courage is what has made this possible and what will allow us to push ahead to pass more tenants rights in the future. I also want to thank the organizations, both activist and labor organizations, that have signed on to a letter to council asking us to pass this council bill without watering it down, without exemptions. So thank you to the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, Washington Community Action Network, American Federation of Teachers, Seattle Education Association, SEIU Local 6925 and 1199 Northwest one America. Washington Federation of State Employees, Natural Pro-Choice, Gender Justice League. Apollo Nickels will share beside UAW Local 4121 LGBTQ Ally Ship X Transit Riders Union U.S. Puget Sound Sage Views Washington Student Association Socialist Students Socialist Alternative Asian Pacific Islander Coalition Capitol Community Council Housing Justice Project Dennis Union of Washington State. The Church Council of Greater Seattle Unite Here and 43rd District Progressives. It's not just those 300 red shirts that they're talking about.
Speaker 2: Working hard for their.
Speaker 3: Rights. Thank you to everyone at the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections who do tremendous hard work and complicated work every day to support tenants and property owners and the city's law department who helped us craft this legislation. And particularly thanks to Ali Banerjee in central staff who tirelessly worked on this legislation even during the busy budget season. But most importantly, thanks to the activists in the Washington Community Action Network, Washington again for making this possible. And especially to Sochi, Michael Vick, who has been a dedicated activist, putting efforts over the last few months, which cannot be overstated. I urge the Council to support this bill without further amendment and are.
Speaker 0: So once we have some possible amendments that we'll consider. And Councilmember Johnson, would you like to address to any of my colleagues to make some general comments to the base legislation? We could proceed in anyway way. Councilman Johnson, we'd like to start off.
Speaker 8: I would like to propose. You know, we don't have an official amendment number on this, but I'm just going to call it Amendment Johnson, I guess. One work. Thanks. I'm a one woman. Okay. So speaking of Amendment one, this is an amendment that we discussed when the bill was in committee several months ago. As the chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, my responsibility is to oversee two different departments. One of those is the Department of Construction and Inspections. Their responsibility is to enforce many of our tenant landlord regulations here in the city, and anybody who spends any time on their website knows how complicated these issues are. It's very difficult for both tenants and landlords to have a good understanding of the individual rights on either side. The earlier legislation that we adopted in August that relates to first in time legislation had carved out an exemption so that that legislation didn't apply to tenants renting housing in a single family residence if the residence is the principal residence of the owner of the residence. So anybody who is renting to sort of what I would call roomy, somebody who enters in the same front door and lives down the hall or anybody who rents an attached accessory dwelling unit was exempted from that legislation. In order to be consistent, as I'm proposing this amendment, Amendment one that would offer similar exemptions, the I'm sorry, not similar the same exemptions to the moving piece legislation both on the security deposits and on the installation payment for last month's rent. So I want to do what I can to make sure that the Department of Construction and Inspections responsibility, when they enforce this legislation so that we can be clearer about who is under which element of which bill and which regulation. The more clarity we have for the department, the more clear it is for tenants and for landlords. So I'd offer Amendment one for consideration by my colleagues.
Speaker 1: I'll second that.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved. And second, that Councilmember Johnson's that Councilman Swanson legislation to be amended by Councilmember Johnson that basically exempts the security deposit in the last month's rent from a person who resides within the unit, their principal residences within the unit. Councilmember Herbold, I know I am aware that you have an amendment to the amendment. I do want to I'm going to have to suspend the rules because technically yours was a little late. Not a.
Speaker 2: Lot.
Speaker 0: But but I so I want to make sure that we have a clean record. And so I'm going to move to suspend the rules. We have a 12:00 deadline and you just missed by that much for it to be considered. So I'm going to move to suspend the rules to allow Councilmember Herbold amendment to be considered your second. All those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now your untimely amendment is timely, and perhaps you could describe what you're amending to Councilmember Johnson's amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd like to move the the Johnson Amendment one with amendment to my amendment that would delete the proposed new Seattle Municipal Code Subsections 7.24.035. H and D and by substituting FMC 7.24.0 35a as provided on the proposed amendment. What my amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment would do is it would recognize that it would recognize the exemption to landlords who live in the principal residence or live on the property and rent out. And a detached accessory dwelling unit would recognize that they are exempt from the part of the law that relates to the size of the cap, but that they are not exempt from the installment plan. And I'm offering this amendment because I believe that if owner occupied landlords are given the ability to charge higher move in fees, their tenants must still be given access to an installment plan. The flexibility that we are granting to these small landlords does not in any way mitigate the need of tenants to be able to afford to move in in the in the first place. Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve announced that 46% of adults and this isn't just low income folks, this is 46% of all adult adults say that they could not cover an emergency expense costing $400 without first having to sell something or borrow money. And so this this legislation is we're trying to we're trying to strike a balance between addressing the needs of landlords and small landlords. But our primary objective. Is to make sure that folks who are struggling in this city have the ability to move in to a rental that they are otherwise eligible to move into. We have 3000 people living unsheltered in the city. We've we've made some changes in the bill to address the needs of small landlords in specific. Specifically, we've we've amended the legislation to allow landlords and tenants to to negotiate a different payment plan than the one otherwise required by the legislation. And we've also amended the legislation that allows landlords to use their holding fees as a deduction from the total amount that would otherwise be subject to an installment plan. So those are some of the things that we've tried to do to address the concerns of of of small landlords. But I would say that in doing so, we can't make this the the the part of this legislation that makes it more possible for renters to access our limited supply of housing. We can't disadvantage them in doing so.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Let me make something clear, because I didn't make it clear there are actually separate amendments. We have Councilmember Johnson's amendment, which basically exempts a segment. We have Councilmember Herbals, which modifies it, but it's a separate one. So what I wanted to get the concepts out there first. I know I'm going to relinquish remarks.
Speaker 2: To you.
Speaker 3: On what you were saying. I think Councilmember Horrible's Amendment is an amendment to Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Direct and procedurally I believe that we have to vote on the amendment to the amendment first.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: We can treat it as such, but it's sort of complicated because it's sort of complicated. I just like because it's not it doesn't neatly fit into it. It it pulls us just a section which is half of it is, if you will. But what I.
Speaker 3: Procedurally, what Herbold is saying is what makes sense. We should.
Speaker 1: And in the.
Speaker 3: Interim.
Speaker 1: In the motion I made was a motion to amend the amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. So. Okay. So I'll treat it as an amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. So. So we're going to specifically vote on that first. Okay. So we're going I'm going to move Councilmember Herbert's. I'm not going to move. If you're going to move or you're going to move. Councilmember, you're going to move. I have his amendment.
Speaker 1: I have moved it.
Speaker 0: And is there's a second. Okay. It's been moved in. Second, Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilman Johnson's amendment has been moved in second. All those in favor say, I know you want it. You want to talk.
Speaker 3: Well, it's a little complicated because the the procedure we are following is we will first vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Johnson amendment, and then we will vote on whatever is the result of that vote. And I want to reserve my right to vote yes on Councilmember Herbert's amendment, but vote no on the minority, because I don't want any little, but I support making the loophole less.
Speaker 0: So I understand that.
Speaker 3: So so to comment on all of that at once.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 0: So we're we'll take the matter of this on the hand. We have to we have to vote on Customer Johnson's amendment as well. So we have time to talk about what.
Speaker 3: But what we vote on will depend on the result of tomorrow's amendment vote.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: Correct. Because. So.
Speaker 0: Okay, so let's keep things very simple.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So that's why I just want.
Speaker 0: Let's keep things very simple. Who would like to talk? Who would like to speak on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment? I have a.
Speaker 1: Question.
Speaker 0: You have a question.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So, Councilmember Herbold, thank you for bringing this forward. Could you explain something to me? How would this work? And let us assume that we have an individual and we had someone speaking earlier who it's her home. She's inviting someone into her home to share the rent. How would your amendment impact an individual who is wanting to be a prospective renter and what rights are reserved for the landlord in that situation? The way my amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment would work is that the landlord in that instance could charge whatever size moving fee they wanted to. They would be exempt from the part of the law that addresses the size of the moving fee that limits it. But they would still be subject to the part of the law that requires that larger moving fee to be paid by installments. So Councilmember Johnson, if I can just follow up with that. How does that impact what your intentions were with your amendment?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think, again, my objective here is to try to make a clean consideration for the Department of Construction and inspections about which laws apply and which incidents. And so I will be voting no on Councilmember Herb Ward's amendment, because I believe that it's a lot easier for us as a department to go to as a segment of the rental population, landlord population. So these are the laws that you are exempt from. So that's my my my intention here is to have really an ease of understanding. Some have called it sort of an overall focus on bureaucracy. And I take that as a compliment, because I think that our bureaucracy works best when it's simple.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it clears mud right now. Just 1/2 here. Housekeeping item. I just noticed we've had several vacant seats here, so I want to send a message to our security that I'm comfortable. Very comfortable. I think we're within the fire code limits to let in 20 people who might be downstairs. We can get 20 people up. I believe we have those. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Swann, did you want to say something in response to the questions and answers on this?
Speaker 3: Yes. And just given the procedure, I think it's better I incorporate all my comments at once. As I said, I will be supporting got herbals are done to amend the amendment that is that has been brought forward by Guttenberg Johnson. But I don't support any loopholes period. So I won't I will be voting against whatever the resulting amendment is. And just to describe my reasoning, this, the amendment that has been brought forward by Councilmember Johnson Waters down the legislation, because if that amendment passes, then tenant protections would be dependent on where the landlord lives. I don't think that is fair to Dennis. The law should apply, John, in general. And I mean, we should be clear that from what we know about the rental market, this this loophole will affect only a small minority of tenants. However, I believe that every tenant deserves their rights to be protected. And so that's why I would be voting no. But some reasons for voting No. One, it's simply not necessary. As I mentioned before, this legislation will have marginal impact on the landlords who are not gouging their tenants at all. Two I disagree with Councilmember Johnson that somehow this amendment will make it easier for the Department of Construction and inspections. Actually, it will make it far more complicated, both for tenants and the department, to know whether or not a given landlord is covered by the law. I mean, the the burden of figuring out laws always falls on the tenants. And why should we make it harder? Why should we make their job harder? Let's make it easier for them. And as far as the Department of Construction and Inspections is concerned, I don't think that this will make it easier for the department. It will actually this amendment will add work to the SDC because they will have to figure out which landlords covered and which landlord is not covered by this law. And finally, as I said, you know, the bottom line is everyone deserves to have their rights protected. Now, there's this whole process I know is labyrinthine. So I just wanted to clarify why I will support the Content Horribles amendment the first place. It's because it will make the Johnson Amendment into a smaller loophole than a larger loophole, which it is now. But ultimately, I will be voting against loopholes in general. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So what will we have on the table is council member Herbert's amendment. I was passed a note to suggest that Councilmember Herbold Redd accidentally sort of lumped the subsections in the same same section, and they're actually listed in two different some C sections. So. So we just want to clarify this before voting on the amendment, but I don't think I clarified it very clearly. So. Did did you follow that customer who.
Speaker 1: I refer in my in the motion I made, I referred to three different subsections, but perhaps I did not. I see. I did. Okay. I see what I did. I can fix it. I move to amend the amendment by deleting the proposed new Seattle Municipal Code subset sections 7.24.03, five H and D and by substituting as EMC 7.24.0 36a as provided for the on the proposed amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay, that's clear as our second.
Speaker 1: Second part.
Speaker 0: Okay. So okay, we're going to have, I think, other opportunities to talk on the entire legislation. Let's just take that First Amendment first by vote. I'm going to ask just you vote and raise your hands so the clerk can see who. So all those who support Councilmember Herbold amendment vote I and raise your hand by. Opposed? No. And raise your hand. No. So that. So it fails is 4 to 4. So now let's turn to Councilmember Johnson's amendment.
Speaker 3: Sorry. What was the result of that vote?
Speaker 0: Four, two, four, four, two, four. So it failed. So now we're going to go to Councilmember Johnson's amendment, which has already been read into the record. And second, I believe. And are there any further comments on Councilmember Johnson's legislation that anyone would like to make councilmember worse?
Speaker 1: Thank you. I we had actually looked at this issue of Councilmember Johnson's exemption a while back. And I just want to say that I'm supporting this for this reason. When we look at owner occupied landlords and we look at the proximity of individuals living in your home and private property, which is different than somebody owning a much of a bunch of apartment complexes. I also am supporting this because I want to encourage owner occupied landlords to stay and into the rental housing market. Furthermore, I think that we need to be consistent with the renter laws that we now have an effect, including the first in time. I think it's important that we streamline enforcement, education and consistency with landlord tenant laws, and I think we have to be mindful that CCI is the main agency that has to enforce and implement this law. And we have to make sure that this law is fair, just and reasonable. I don't think that. That some of us who looked for exemptions are looking for loopholes or wanting to water down the law. I think that that those of us that are looking at the law, we want common sense. We want to review all aspects of the law, including the enforcement, the education and the legality. And that doesn't mean that some of us, again, aren't watering down the law or in the pocket in the pocket of big business or landlord lobbyists groups. I find that kind of rhetoric not helpful. Not all exemptions. As a lawyer of 30 years, not all exemptions are loopholes. There are reasons for exemptions. Not all laws are applied without a recognition of the facts and the people that it affects of particularly private property and constitutional rights. As many of you know, this was I asked and I want to thank Councilmember Sawant for her leadership. I ask that this be sent back to committee, not because I don't believe that this was a good law. I wanted this to be a law that would be effective and not like some of the other laws that I've seen passed in the city council where they sit on a shelf and can't get implemented because people thought the political flavor of the day was the right thing to do. And then facts change, or the reasoning or the law and the legality would not pass the scrutiny. And that's what I wanted to make sure that we handled. I'm I'm happy with this law because, as you know, I am going to support this legislation today. I'm proud that this legislation went back to the committee. During the committee last month. There were 16 changes, including two amendments that I brought forward. And the amendments would allow for landlords to collect their movement fees upfront without an installment plan. If their fees or their movement fees are 25% of a month's rent or less. And to clarify the enforcement process to ensure clear compliance. In short, I want to make sure that we incentivize landlords to make it easier for people to move in. I did not want this to be a punitive law. I also want to thank everyone who has provided feedback. And of course, Councilmember So-and-so office and Councilmember Herbert's office in working with our office and all the all the groups that made this move forward not just. Thank you groups of can. Thank you for the landlord groups we were contacted by every group imaginable and we spoke to everybody and we looked at the history of the law and how it went. So I just want to say, those of us that worked hard on this weren't trying to water anything down or look for a loophole, were mainly just trying to be mindful, practical and reasonable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Where is Councilmember Brian?
Speaker 4: You know, I'll be brief. I'm going to oppose this amendment. But I just want to comment on one thing, Councilmember wise, that you brought up. The the vast majority of tenant landlord laws apply regardless of whether the owner of or the landlord is a living on site. And so for consistency sake, sorry though the first in time legislation is the one exemption or exception that I'm aware of. So but I believe it to be consistent. What we should do is turn down this amendment because the body of our landlord laws apply to everybody.
Speaker 0: I saw a customer swap and the customer Herbert.
Speaker 2: Customer very.
Speaker 3: Quick point actually got some Brian already touched on it. The very important point that if the customer Johnson had said that the main reason he brought this up was for consistency for the sake of the Department of Construction inspection. Then in that, if that's the case, then then it should not have this loophole because as customer, Frank argues that only the first in time law has an exemption. And there was a very specific reason that's not a loophole and an exemption. And in fact, this is something that Council Member Herbal let on, which is that if you are a landlord or a property owner with a tenant in your unit, then for safety's sake, especially for single women who may own their own property and rent it out, it's important that they have some discretion on who rents on their own in their house. But that logic does not apply to a payment plan in any way. So I don't see any reason for this loophole, for this law.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: I too, will be voting against this amendment. I feel very strongly.
Speaker 5: That.
Speaker 1: We our primary obligation is to ensure that this legislation assists tenants no matter what kind of rental housing they're moving in to assist them in in being able to access housing by utilizing the payment plan, which I think is the most important part of this legislation. And so exempting all the tenants who rent from a landlord who lives on the property is simply going to result in fewer tenants of me of need being able to to access those units. Likewise, I don't quite understand how this exemption will make it easier for the Department of Construction and inspections to enforce enforce the law, because this this legislation is an exception to the rule rather than B being actually consistent with the rule. And it will actually put them in a position of having to make a determination whether or not the the ordinance is something that they have to enforce or not enforce when a tenant calls to to file a complaint. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Katsuhiro. So we have on the table Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. I think I'll say a few words and I won't say anything on the base legislation that I will be supporting. But part of my I'll just speak to the audience that, you know, I will not emulate the behavior that I despise and the behavior that I despise are always castigating people, denigrating people, and not looking for the good in them. There are some awful landlords out there, but there are some very good ones too. And we do. I think we all could recognize we have an affordable housing crisis in this city. And I think as we approach all these problems, we don't poke fun or criticize without factual basis, good people trying to help the solution. I don't know any of these folks out here, but I don't believe they're trying to completely destroy this city in terms of affordability issues. But with Councilmember Johnson's legislation, it's very simple to me that when I first started thinking about this legislation and became excited about it, I realized this is a policy. These are policies we can actually control legally. And it's a good thing to make sure people are not penalized in the front door and that they if they don't have the money to afford a place, that they will be required to finance it. And I quite frankly, I didn't see the the big the big harm to the landlord. But I won't I won't criticize the organizations to represent them, their voices. They have a collective voice. But this is a policy, and I'm willing to revisit it if it doesn't work. But I believe that at the end of the day, it's going to be okay for everybody. I do believe that in my heart. And I must say, with respect to your amendment, that I asked the situation about the the senior I say senior citizen. I'm almost a senior citizen myself, but the senior citizen that is renting out their basement or something like that and they may want to have a little closer look and feel. And that's why I during the first in time legislation, I asked about that situation, not the the the person that owns, you know, multi-family units and the whole bit. I was looking for the smaller situation where there could be safety issues and all that. And I thought that person should rightfully have a little more say so on who they're renting to. I thought about people in my family who ran out of room, things like that. And so I was supporting your legislation. But the base legislation, I just will not talk about loopholes and watering down legislation when at least in my heart, I'm trying to do the right thing for those people that cannot afford to live in the city. And I take offense to that, quite frankly, I take offense to those kinds of terms because they are offensive. But I'll be supporting your legislation, your amendment. And I think it's we're ready to vote if anyone else has anything else to say. So I'm going to ask you to show your hand as you vote affirmatively or negatively. All those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amendments say, I can vote and raise your hand. I all those opposed vote no and raise your hand. No, I'm just repeating, man. So and what do we have there? Five, three. So Councilmember Johnson's amendment passes and now we're ready for the amended legislation. So we have a bill in front of us introduced by Councilmember Swan. I think we've beat it up pretty good. Did anyone else want to make any closing comments? Councilmember Burgess, I. You're raising your hand.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I, too, will be supporting this ordinance. Actually separate from whether we have a housing crisis in Seattle, which we do, I view this ordinance as fair to all parties, and I think we're justified in supporting it even if we didn't have a housing crisis today. But I do want to address the false narrative that we are hearing more and more frequently in these chambers, and that is that if we want to do legislation correctly, somehow we are engaged in some sinister scheme to defeat ideas or throw things back. I just don't accept that. I mean, being a legislator is hard work and it's our job to get things right. And in my time on the council, taking a little more time to get things right is really important. And labeling and deriding opponents of our particular position is not consistent with our democratic values at all. And it pains me that we continue to hear that from some in these chambers. And it pains me that we stoop to that level. We're better than that. And all we have to do is look at the national political scene. Is that what we want in our city? And I don't think we do. And we should stop that kind of activity here in council chambers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I O'Brien.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Swear I. Bagshot Burgess, i. Herbold II Johnson President Arrow Rite Aid in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Pass and sign it. Yeah. He please read the report of the Parks. Seattle Center Libraries and the Waterfront Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 7.24.040, 7.24.050, 7.24.060, 7.24.070, and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); adding new Sections 7.24.035, 7.24.036, 7.24.038, 7.24.110, 7.24.120, 7.24.130, 7.24.140, 7.24.150, 7.24.160, 7.24.170, 7.24.180, 7.24.190, 7.24.200, and 7.24.210 to the SMC; and repealing Section 7.24.090 of the SMC; all to limit the amount of security deposits and non-refundable move-in fees, to allow residential tenants to pay security deposits, non-refundable move-in fees, and last month’s rent in installments, and to establish enforcement provisions for Chapter 7.24. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118871 | Speaker 5: They report to the park sales center libraries and Waterfront Committee in item 24118 871 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Office of Waterfront, author and Submission of Applications for Granting Funding Assistance for Boating Facilities program projects to the state's Recreation Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79 8.25 ICW and WAC 286 Authorized acceptance of the grant if awarded. Authorize entering into a project agreement. If the grant as a word in writing confirming certain prior acts committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Okay, so let's just take a slow second here as people leave the chambers and I ask that you get quieted down a little bit. Thank you. Councilmember Suarez, the floor is yours.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I was hoping everyone would stay around for this riveting piece of legislation, but I guess not. This is the grant application for the Pier 62 project. The Office of the Waterfront is applying for a 600,000 grant to match the 600,000 in voter approved seawall bonds for this redevelopment project, the committee recommends passage of the bill
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Are there any further comments on this bill? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I o'brien. I so aren't. Bagshaw. I Burgess. I Herbold. Johnson, President Harrell. I seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you that the bill passed and the chair was silent. Please read the part of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee.
Speaker 5: Three of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item three Appointment at 531 Appointment of David H. Goldberg as Members Seattle Planning Commission for Term two April 15, 2018. The committee recommends that the appointment be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Office of the Waterfront; authorizing submission of application(s) for grant funding assistance for a Boating Facilities Program project (Pier 62 Boat Dock) to the State’s Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in chapter 79A.25 RCW and WAC 286; authorizing acceptance of the grant if awarded; authorizing entry into a project agreement if the grant is awarded; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118872 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item for accessible 118 872 vacated the alley block 14 areas of Sarah Abel's addition bounded by Westlake Avenue, Virginia Street, Six Avenue, Leonard Street and Seventh Avenue on the petition of ACORN Development LLC. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So this this item in the next item are both of the final acts we do on a street vacation, just to remind the public of how this process works. When a street or alley vacation is proposed by an adjacent property owner, they make a proposal. And part of that discussion with the Department of Transportation comes up with a package of benefits. What we do as a council then is we would approve in advance the concept of.
Speaker 2: That street vacation.
Speaker 4: And so they can proceed with the construction they would use as street or alley in this case. And then when the project is finally complete, we go back and confirm that everything was done according to plan and then make the actual transfer of property. But we can't do the transfer of property until the public benefits are in place. This first item came before the Council in November of 2012 and we did the heavy lifting back then and this is that final act to convey it. As mentioned in the bill title, it's between sixth and seventh Avenue and between Virginia and Leonora. I believe it's an Amazon project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Bryan, any questions on this particular bill? Please read the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I.
Speaker 2: O'Brien Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Burgess, I Herbold Hi.
Speaker 1: Johnson. President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed a.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show senate. Please read agenda item number.
Speaker 5: 550118 789 became the remaining north 40 feet of the alley and block 18 being the remaining portion of the alley and the block line between East Cherry Street on the North and east Jefferson Street on the south, the alley being located approximate 140 feet west of 12th Avenue. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE vacating the alley in Block 14, Heirs of Sarah A. Bell’s Addition, bounded by Westlake Avenue, Virginia Street, 6th Avenue, Lenora Street, and 7th Avenue, on the petition of Acorn Development LLC (Clerk File 312260). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118792 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 5: Agenda item six Constable 118 792 relating to street and sidewalk use amending section 11.40 point 257 Mr. Code to authorize the Place Street program as an allowable use for public play for public place. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Cuts from O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I should say thank you to Councilmember Johnson for cover for me in council briefing this morning. I had a chance to watch you and it's very informative. I thank all of you. It's really fun to sit in bed, blowing my nose, watching the council briefing proceed. The idea behind the play street is great. This is a pilot program that's going on for a little while now. Just so folks know this. This legislation does a little small piece. But I want to take this opportunity to highlight that neighbors throughout the city can apply for a free street. Permit to close down their street. They can if they want to have, for instance, you know, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, after school, kids are going to ride their bikes around the street. They want to close it off at either end. They can get a one time permit that will last for up to six months, for up to three days a week for up to, I think, 6 hours of closure. The idea is that as we find as our city continues to grow with more and more people living in it, we need to find places for folks to play, which is a really exciting program, is great to see folks out there doing the play streets in a number of places. However, what's been discovered is that we have language in our municipal code that specifically says people are not supposed to play on streets. It was driven by safety concerns, I'm sure. What this legislation actually does is in the section that talks about no roller skating, riding a coaster skateboarding toy vehicle should happen on the streets. It adds the language that says except where allowed by a street use permit. So that's the bulk of this legislation. But the concept is something that's been going on and will continue to go on through the pilot program, which in committee. We asked about that and they said how much longer is going to be a pilot? They said, we're we're about done with the pilot phase and it's going to be a full on program in the city, which is great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, castro brian, any comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas I. O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: So what? Bagshaw Burgess.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herbold I. Johnson President Harrell I. Aden favor and then oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and the chair was silent. Please read Agenda number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; amending Section 11.40.250 of the Seattle Municipal Code to authorize the Play Street program as an allowable use of the public place. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_Res 31724 | Speaker 5: Agenda item eight, Resolution 317 24 reaffirming Seattle values of inclusion, respect and justice and the city's commitment toward actions to reinforce these values. In calling on President elect Donald Trump to condemn recent attacks and hate speech that perpetuate religious persecution, racism, sexism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia and xenophobia.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Where at worst cast member? Herbold I'm thinking, whereas all the time.
Speaker 1: I get from.
Speaker 2: My book, in my book.
Speaker 1: You get Lisa and I'm mixed up all the time because we're both redheads. I'd like to first thank Councilmember Gonzalez, who joined me in co-sponsoring this resolution, as well as Mayor Murry in the development of it, and the organization's one America Allyship and the Gender Justice League for making specific suggestions for language to include in the resolution . Since the election, there have been numerous accounts, both locally and nationally reported to police on social media and to advocacy organizations of hate targeted at Muslims, Sikhs, Arabs, Jews, Latinos, African-Americans, Asian women, people with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community members. These incidents are extremely concerning for residents of Seattle. We are a diverse city. 34% of our residents are people of color, and 19% of our residents are foreign born. There are 129 languages spoken in Seattle schools. Our values include being an open and inclusive city for all of our residents. And these incidents are particularly troubling to those of us who work to govern our city, because we recognize that Seattle and our country was was founded by by immigrants who were fleeing religious persecution, who enshrined freedom of religion as one of our nation's fundamental legal and ethical principles. And we want to be able to say affirmatively that this election does not prompt or encourage or sanction any notion that the Constitution and laws of the United States in the state of Washington, the charter and laws of our city, would support in any way any acts of hate. Specifically, the resolution condemns hateful speech and violent action. It calls on the president elect to condemn recent attacks and hate speech, encourages the president elect to revoke any potential cabinet appointments of individuals connected to advancing hate and petitions. The United States Senate in his confirmation process to oppose the nomination of those candidates. The Senate finds to have advance racism, religious oppression, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or bigotry. Lastly, the resolution states our commitment on the part of the Council and the mayor to implement measures to make it easier for people to report incidents of bias motivated threats , harassment and violence to ensure that our city continues to be an inclusive, respectful and just city. And we've already heard just last week, on Thursday from the police department that they're very responsive to to the requests from my office to make their malicious harassment slash bias crimes website, which which already exists to make it more high profile and easier to understand as a place to report hate crimes. And translating the page into multiple language as well. So I thank the Seattle Police Department for their responsiveness to this the need for this work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Any comments on this resolution? Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 8: Just briefly, I want to say how I think how important this statement is for us at this time. In shortly after the election, presidential election in the university district, we saw white supremacist posters go up on telephone poles. We started seeing hate crimes on the University of Washington campus. We ourselves are not immune from the terror that is sweeping the country. And I think it's really important for us to recognize that we need to call out not only the president for his actions and condoning or being silent on on actions that have clearly been taken by others in his name. But we also, I think, need to reinforce our commitment as a city to making sure that we are a safe place for everybody. So I want to say how much I appreciate this and want to ask that we all redouble our efforts to make sure that we're making this city safer for everybody
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Well-stated. Any other comments? Not seeing any. All those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come before the council? Nope. Nope. With that, everyone, have a great day. We stand adjourned. We'll see everyone next Friday. This Friday, rather, this Friday. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION reaffirming Seattle’s values of inclusion, respect, and justice, and the City’s commitment toward actions to reinforce these values; and calling on President-elect Donald Trump to condemn recent attacks and hate speech that perpetuate religious persecution, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118842 | Speaker 3: The report at the Select Budget Committee Gender M's went into Council 118 842 authorizing and is under 16 accepting of funding from non city sources. The committee recommends the bill pass agenda item to council 118 843 amending ordinance 124 927, which adopted the 2016 budget. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Okay. Chair Burgess. This is a matter of process. I'll still turn to you and no comment is always appropriate. Okay. Any comments from my colleagues? Please call the role on the passage of the of agenda item number one Herbold.
Speaker 4: Yes. Johnson. I was. I. O'BRIEN So aren't I. Bagshaw Burgess, I. Gonzalez, President Herrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and chair of Senate Please call the roll call on item number two.
Speaker 4: Herbold Johnson Suarez. O'Brien. So, Sergeant. Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez President Harrell nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and chose sign it next to our four file so please read click files and items three and four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2016, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle Fire Department, and Seattle Police Department to accept specified grants and private funding and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118827 | Speaker 3: Agenda items five 310. Count the bill 118827. Relating to street and sidewalk use committee recommends the bill pass agenda item six Cancel 118828 relating to street and sidewalk use. The committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118829 relating to Seattle Department of Transportation. The committee recommends the bill pass agenda item number eight Council Bill 118 830 relating to the financing of the Central Waterfront Improvement Program. The Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item nine Council Bill 118855 relating to parking rates. The Committee recommends the bill pass and agenda item ten Constable 118847 conditioning the Seattle Department of Transportation 2017 Grant Application. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Okay. Any comments from the chair on a year? That is five through ten? Says no. Please call the rule on council. Bill 118827.
Speaker 4: Herbold I. Johnson Whereas. O'BRIEN Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzales President Harrell nine in favor. Nine opposed to the.
Speaker 2: Bill passed in show assignment. Please call the roll call on council.
Speaker 4: Bill 118828 Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw Burgess Gonzales. I President Harrell eight nine in favor nine opposed the.
Speaker 2: Bill pass and chose to sign it. Please call the roll call on council. Bill 118829.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Johnson. Whereas. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President Arrow. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Came the bill passed and Cheryl sign it to call the roll on council. Bill 118830.
Speaker 4: Herbold I. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President. Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill. Passenger will signage. Please call the roll call on counts. Bill 118855.
Speaker 4: Herbold I. Johnson Whereas I. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. BURGESS Hi. Gonzalez President. Herald Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed came.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and Charles, sign it and please call the roll call on council. Bill 118847.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Johnson. Suarez. I. O'Brien.
Speaker 6: Sergeant I.
Speaker 4: Victor. Burgess. Gonzales. I. President Harrell. Nine in favor and unopposed came.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. And, you know, it's always important to keep our viewership on Channel 21 up. So I want those viewers to know that these are some very important agenda items that we're voting on. And we will have time at the end to elaborate on why we voted for some of these items, because many of these items, again, a lot of community members and activists and council members worked really hard to get these agenda items. But we just want to get the voting part out the way we don't want them changed to channel what they don't change channels like this anymore, which you get the draft. So please read. Agenda items 11 through 15 into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; amending the Street Use Permit Fee Schedule authorized by Section 15.04.074 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118848 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 11 Constable 118 848 relating to automated fixed camera revenue. Committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 118 838 Relating to the Animal Feed Ordinance, the committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 118836 Increase in the Fee for Marijuana Business Licenses Committee Recommends the bill pass agenda 914 Council Bill 118 835 Relating to PET Licensing, The Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 15 relating to fees charged by the SEAL Center Department. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Any comments from the chair? Please call the rule on council. Bill 118848 This agenda item number 11 Herbold Johnson.
Speaker 4: Whereas O'Brien.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and nine oppose.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please call the roll call on the roll on council. Bill 118838.
Speaker 4: Herbold I. Johnson is. O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez, I. President Harrell All right. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Bill pass in show senate. Please call the roll on counts. Bill 118836.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Johnson. Maurice. O'Brien. So aren't. Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez President Herald I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill pass and chair of Senate Please call the roll on council Bill 118835 This agenda item number 14.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Johnson. Whereas. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess by Gonzalez. President Harrell. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and the chair was silent. Please call the roll on council. Bill 118841.
Speaker 4: Herbold II Johnson Suarez O'Brien.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 4: Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 0: Burgess I.
Speaker 4: Gonzalez, President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes in the chair with signage. Get the clerk second. Catch her breath. And Wall Street Council. Rather agenda items 16 and 17. The short title of those two pieces, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to automated fixed camera revenue; amending Ordinance 124230; and amending Section 5.82.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118834 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item 18 Council Bill 118 834 Relating to public outreach and Engagement Creating Community Involvement Commission to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. The Committee recommends the bill passes amended. Agenda Item 19 Resolution 31718 relating to public average engagement. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Any comments from the chair?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Please call the roll on council. 118834. That's a June item number 18.
Speaker 4: Herbold, I. Johnson Maurice. O'Brien. Hi. So aren't I.
Speaker 0: Burgess, I.
Speaker 4: Gonzales President. Harrell All right. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: Bill pass and please call the roll on. Actually have a resolution here so it will shift to a voice resolution vote. All those in favor of resolution 31718. Please vote by saying i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted in chair will sign it. We haven't read it, you know. Okay, let's read again. I don't remember to. Short title, please.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 20 Council Bill 118 864 Relating to the financing of Equitable Development Implementation Plan projects, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: In comments from the chair. Please call the roll on council 11886 for this agenda item number 20.
Speaker 4: Herbold I Johnson.
Speaker 0: II.
Speaker 4: Maurice O'Brien on Bagshaw.
Speaker 0: Burgess Hi.
Speaker 4: Gonzales Hi. President Harrell Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it immediately. Before we move to 21 and 24, I might have handed you some files out of order cause that was okay. So when you are ready, please read agenda items 21 324 Short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to public outreach and engagement; creating a Community Involvement Commission to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council; amending Sections 3.35.010, 3.35.030, and 3.35.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Chapter 3.62, consisting of Sections 3.62.010, 3.62.020, 3.62.030, 3.62.040, 3.62.050, and 3.62.060, to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118826 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 21 Council Bill 118 826 Related to fees and charges for permitting activities of the Department of Construction and inspections and related fees by other departments. Committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item 22 Constable 118 40 relating to the electric system of the City of Seattle Committee recommends the bill pass. Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 118 825 Relating to the municipal water system of the City of Seattle, the committee recommends the bill pass and agenda item 24 acceptable 11883 333 Relating to wastewater and drainage services of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And it comes from the chair. Please read the rule on council bill 118826.
Speaker 4: Herbold Johnson Cortez. Brian Swan Hi Victor Burgess Gonzalez President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed the.
Speaker 2: Bill passes can show sign it please call the roll on council Bill 118840.
Speaker 4: Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzales. President Harrell. I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Please call the rule on council bill 118825. That's agenda item number 23.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzales. President Harrell. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please call the roll on council bill 118833. Agenda item number 24 Herbold.
Speaker 4: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw.
Speaker 0: Burgess, I.
Speaker 4: Gonzales. President Harrell. All right. Nine in favor and unopposed. Okay.
Speaker 2: Bill. Pass and show us. Sign it. I see light at the end of this tunnel, and it's not an oncoming train. Please read agenda items 25 through 27. The short title, please.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 25 Constable one one 8845 Lean to the Organization of City Government Moving the Office of Labor Standards from the Subsidiary Unit and the Office for Civil Rights into its own executive department. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to fees and charges for permits and activities of the Department of Construction and Inspections and related fees by other departments; amending Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 22.900A, Administration and Enforcement; Chapter 22.900B, General Provisions; Chapter 22.900C, Fees for Land Use Review; Chapter 22.900D, Fees for New and Altered Buildings and Equipment; Chapter 22.900E, Fees for Certificates and Registrations; Chapter 22.900F, Compliance and Other Inspections; Chapter 22.900G, Fees Collected for Other Departments; and Chapter 22.900H, Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance Program Fees. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_11212016_CB 118839 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 32 Constable 118 839 Relating to contracting deafness, the committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report excuse me, passed as amended with a divided report with councilmembers Bagshaw, Harrell, Herbold, Johnson, Gonzalez, O'Brien, Swanton Favor Councilmembers Burgess and Juarez opposed agenda item 33 Council Bill 118 837 Building to Levy A Property Taxes Committee recommends the bill pass agenda item 34 Council Bill 118 851 authorizing the levy of regular property taxes for the city sale for collection 2017. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 2: And comments from the chair. Please call the role on council 118839 herbold.
Speaker 4: I. JOHNSON Whereas look. O'BRIEN All right. So on I. Bagshaw?
Speaker 0: Burgess No.
Speaker 4: Gonzalez, I. President Herrell I. Six in favor, actually, seven in favor and two opposed.
Speaker 2: The chair, Pat. The chair passes, the bill passes and and the chair will sign it. Please call the roll on agenda item number 33, which is Council Bill 118837.
Speaker 4: Herbold. Hi. Johnson Forest. Hi. O'Brien. All right, so on. BAGSHAW Burgess.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: I think I was I didn't harrow.
Speaker 0: I'm.
Speaker 4: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair was signage and please call the role on council bill 118851. This is an item number 34.
Speaker 4: Herbold. I. Johnson. Whereas I. O'Brien. So I. Bagshaw Burgess.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Gonzales I President Harrell I nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please please read agenda items 35 through 37 into the record. First short title, please.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 35 Clerk File 314 362. City Council changes to the 2017 through 2018 proposed budget and the 2017 through 2022 proposed capital improvement program. The committee recommends the file be placed on file. Agenda Item 36 Council 118 849 Adopting a budget, including capital improvement program and position modifications. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to contracting indebtedness; authorizing and providing for the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to pay all or part of the costs of various elements of the City’s capital improvement program and other City purposes approved by ordinance, to refinance certain outstanding City-guaranteed bonds of the Seattle Chinatown-International District Preservation and Development Authority, to provide a portion of the funds necessary to replace the Mercer Arena, and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing for certain terms, conditions, and covenants and the manner of sale of the bonds; authorizing certain agreements for the use of proceeds of the Bonds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10312016_CB 118798 | Speaker 7: After all, the last time City Light was part of an energy imbalance market in California, the Enron debacle happened. To be clear, City Light has assured us that they have protections in place to avoid that in the future. But again, for us, it's a question of adequate oversight. The Council bill was amended in committee to allow City Light to explore entering the energy imbalance market, retaining for the Council the opportunity to take further action before that is finalized. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends passage of the bill as amended. And additionally, I understand Captain Gonzalez has an amendment for a report back which would be considered friendly.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Council President. The amendment that I have would impose a deadline of April ten, 2017, by which time Seattle City Light must provide the Council with a detailed analysis of the costs, benefits and potential risks of participation in the Kaiser's EIA. This deadline would allow the Council to receive and review the results of this analysis in a reasonable time frame and grant city light sufficient time to conduct the analysis that is required. The fiscal note has also been updated to accurately reflect the cost of evaluating potential participation within the utility's existing resources. The E.M. or Energy Imbalance Market is an auction market for balancing supply and demand in five minute increments. The AM is relatively young, with several large utilities considering entry into this market. Several weeks ago, I expressed concerns about jumping into this market based on Seattle City Lights presentation me to the Energy and Environment Committee on September 27th , 2016. While participation in this market, if done correctly, could potentially produce anywhere in the range of 4 to $23 million per year in additional revenue, I was concerned about the utility's preparedness to enter into the market, given the significant startup investments that would be required. For example, Seattle City Wide Conservatively estimates a $4 million per year increase in revenue, but also projects a $2.8 million increase in costs and a need to invest $8.8 million in upfront capital investments in order to move forward. B 8.8 million in front in upfront capital investments with would similar to the new customer billing information system requiring new software infrastructure, new personnel, new training for that personnel, vendor building and testing, utility testing, metered designs and installations over a period of three years before the utility even saw any revenue because there are significant risks that accompany the varying revenue projections. I have asked the City Light to report back to council by April 10th, 2017 to provide Council members with sufficient time to analyze the prospects of authorizing Seattle City Light to enter into what would be a new line of business for the utility and those that request is reflected in the amendment that my office circulated to all councilmember offices last Friday. So I would move for adoption of amendment to council bill 118798 with substitute section four.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's take the amendment first has been moved in second to substitute section four with the language described by Councilmember Gonzales. All those in favor of the amendment say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now we have an amended bill. Are there any further comments from any of our colleagues? And again, I want to thank Councilmember Swamp for being willing to hold this for a few weeks and for Councilmember Gonzalez's continued diligence on this matter. So we have a hopefully a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the council. So hearing no further comments, please call the roll on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 2: Bill Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzales. Herbold II. Johnson, Suarez, I. O'Brien. So weren't I. President Harrell. I. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and chair will sign it. If that's our sole piece of legislation. Is there any? Further business to come for the council. Council member Herbold. I should first thank you.
Speaker 6: I'd like to ask to be excused from the December 5th full council meeting.
Speaker 1: 12 five. I don't hear second to second in. The Council member will be excused from December 5th, 2017 council meeting. And I'm aware that we have many folks absent that day. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to suspend the rules really quickly, if I may, to make a quick comment.
Speaker 1: That would be absolutely acceptable. Are. Is there any further business on any absences before. Councilmember Gonzales. The rules are suspended. The rules are.
Speaker 6: Suspended. Thank you. I just want to do it for the viewing public. And my colleagues acknowledge that we have a 10th person sitting at the dais with us this afternoon, and this is actually the Solow who lives in West Seattle. She is a social work student at the University of Washington in Tacoma and is shadowing me and my team today, learning about how Seattle government works and how democracy works, and have really appreciated everybody's willingness to make her make her comfortable. And so I think this is the first time we've had a non councilmember sit up at that at the dais. And so I want to thank everybody for their graciousness in allowing me to, to, to bring this young woman who's hopefully will run for office someday up to the dais to see what it feels like to be on this side of the dais. So thank you so much and thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Very good. Thanks for that. I thought I heard her say I a few times. I want to thank everyone to have a great day. With that will stand adjourned.
Speaker 0: Get ten votes on things. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Department to participate in the California Independent System Operator’s Energy Imbalance Market, including authorizing the execution of any necessary agreements with the California Independent System Operator, as well as any additional agreements necessary or convenient for implementation and participation in the California Independent System Operator’s Energy Imbalance Market. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10172016_Res 31713 | Speaker 0: I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Agenda item number one, please read it into the record.
Speaker 2: The report of the Full Council Agenda Item one, Resolution 31713 ten three partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to participate in the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Urban Conservation Treaty for Migratory Birds Program. Encouraging, encouraging the exploration and incorporation of bird friendly policies, design and best practices for creating, enhancing and maintaining safe habitats for migratory birds and other urban wildlife.
Speaker 0: So this to me this customer whereas customer in worse how was thank you I have a lot of paperwork got scrambling Thank you Councilmember worse for bailing out.
Speaker 4: Yes. This is a resolution expressing the city's interest in joining the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Urban Conservation Tree for Migratory Birds Program. I think you've all heard me speak about this at least three week, three Mondays in a row. This resolution will accompany the Department of Parks and Recreation participation in an event tomorrow, October 18th, officially joining the effort to preserve migratory bird habitats in our urban landscapes. Obviously it passed out of committee and I would recommend the full council support.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, council members. Any further comments? Are those in favor of adopting the resolution? Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION to enter a partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to participate in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Urban Conservation Treaty for Migratory Birds Program encouraging the exploration and incorporation of bird-friendly policies, design, and best practices for creating, enhancing, and maintaining safe habitats for migratory birds and other urban wildlife. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10172016_Res 31716 | Speaker 0: So the period is closed, so we're ready to vote. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next gen item to the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda item three Resolution 31716 requesting that the Washington State Department of Transportation preserve one support pier associated with the Renault Carriage Thomas Expressway, stating the city's city council's intent to fund an engineering study of the pier. Structural integrity and setting this city council's intent that the city accept ownership of the pier.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman.
Speaker 4: Worse if you. This was first of all, I want to thank former council member Jean Garden. She's still here. I want to thank Jean for coming down today and providing public comment. She was one of the people that I spoke to in promoting this. And the resolution states that we as a city value the history of neighborhoods and grassroots activists coming together to fight for their community. The resolution also calls for an engineering study to determine the stability of the segment to be preserved. I want to thank councilmembers Burgess, O'Brien, Gonzalez, Herbold and Council President Harrell for co-sponsoring this with me. I want to end with a quote from my friend and mentor, King County Councilmember Larry Gossett, who sent us a letter dated October ten, 2016. This is truly a legacy worth of celebration. Keeping a remnant of the abandoned R.H. Thompson Freeway will serve as an important reminder of the power of citizen action and the extraordinary accomplishment of Seattle citizens all those years ago. So with that it passed out of our committee unanimously, and I would like this council to support it as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman. Was there any questions or comments from any of my colleagues, Katherine Johnson?
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President I just want to echo again for the members of the public some of the issues that I brought up this morning in council briefing. I'm going to be voting for this resolution today, but I have some things that I think we need to put on the record that relate to the resolution. And I want to preface my statements by talking about the commitment that I have to making sure that this project is the most environmentally friendly project, which is a bit of an oxymoron because we're talking about a freeway project. My my history with this project has gone back for more than 30 years. My mom was an organizer for the Earth Day 20 celebration back in Wrightsville in the early 1990s. I spent a lot of time going across this bridge, the 520 bridge, as a youngster growing up on the East Side and in my professional career, spent a lot of my time and energy over the last 12 years trying my hardest to make this 520 bridge project, the most multimodal project that it can be, the skinniest project that it can be. But I think that there are some real questions related to the issues that are outlined in the resolution that still, as of yet , we need to grapple with as a council. Some of those questions include the structural integrity of the the elements that we may be saving. The federally approved record of decision related to this project, which we may be violating with the passage of this ordinance. The existing memorandum of understanding that we have with the State Department of Transportation, which we may be changing as a result of this ordinance. And then also, just generally what other issues we may need to take on in terms of structural deficiencies or ownership should this prove to be the direction that the council wants to go down ? So I strongly support the idea of spending some of our council resources to study the preservation concept. And I think that that's important for us to recognize the history of those brave citizens who fought against the Irish Thompson Expressway and whose legacy. I feel like I work on a daily basis. But I also want us to recognize that there are a lot of outstanding questions that we really need to grapple with as a council after we adopt this legislation. And it may not be as easy as it's outlined today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Any further comments or concerns? If not, I move to adopt resolution 31716. I'm sorry. Oh, I didn't see the hand count. So I'm Herbold.
Speaker 7: Hey. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to make note of some comments from County Councilmember Larry Gossett about this resolution. He wrote to us late last week and reflected on how, as a young activist and founding member of the University of Washington Black Student Union in the late 1960s, he joined many other Seattle residents in opposing freeways that would have destroyed the heart of Seattle Central District. He writes that he vividly remembers going door to door in the Coleman Judkins neighborhood, joined by members of the Black Panthers and others to collect signatures for petitions and urged residents to make their voices heard at public hearings. He describes the anti freeway movement as an effective, inspiring and amazing example of multiracial unity in Seattle that enabled the coalition of community activists to resist the unnecessary destruction of inner city homes. And I just wanted to take a moment to recognize that this movement not only did it an important thing for making sure that neighborhoods were preserved and that we were challenging the utility of urban freeways and that investment in public dollars, but that this was a really important tool for multiracial community organizing during a time that much of the communities were really struggling with issues related to civil rights.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Horrible. Any further comments? Then I will move to adopt resolution 31716 of those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Thank you, Councilmember. Whereas. And before you read the report of the next agenda item from the Energy and Environment Committee, I. Mr. Ward, I do want to say for the record, you are absolutely right. The administrative staff, excluding the council, the full council meeting along with the budget meetings. So we apologize for any confusion there. Those online calendars not legally binding, but still it was a mistake that a person, a human being made. And we apologize for any inconvenience to any party. Thanks for pointing that out, sir. Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION requesting that the Washington State Department of Transportation preserve one support pier associated with the Roanoke/R.H. Thomson Expressway; stating the City Council’s intent to fund an engineering study of the pier’s structural integrity; and stating the City Council’s intent that the City accept ownership of the pier. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10172016_CB 118817 | Speaker 0: Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee.
Speaker 2: The report at the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item four Constable 118817 relating to residential rental properties amending section 7.20 4.0, 20.0, 30.0, 4.0 50.0 60.
Speaker 0: And you can read a short version.
Speaker 2: Of the committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Council member. So what?
Speaker 9: Councilor O'Brien wants.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 5: Councilmember for.
Speaker 0: Brian would like to speak.
Speaker 1: I just need to disclose publicly that I am a landlord. I'll be voting on this, but I wanted to make sure I'm transparent with the public.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that disclosure.
Speaker 9: Thank you, President Hill. I'm excited to introduce this ordinance that would limit the exorbitant move in fees tenants are expected to pay in the city of extremely high rents. The laws in the state overwhelmingly are stacked against tenants, particularly the arbitrary and draconian state ban on rent control. However, as tenants get more organized locally, we are starting the process of winning individual tenant rights that will add up to a significant tenant bill of rights for the city. This Council bill limits nonrefundable fees to only those explicitly mentioned under state law limits, security deposits and nonrefundable fees to no more than one month's rent, which is pretty standard anyway, and most importantly, allows tenants to pay the security deposit and last month's rent on a payment plan. That final aspect of the bill will allow many tenants to overcome a substantial hurdle to finding housing. As you have heard from public comment and this public testimony today shows how significant it is for tenants that they have this legislation for those who who would like their decisions to be based on the data. Washington Community Action Network survey of tenants found the move in fees to be the biggest obstacle to finding rental housing nationwide. According to recent studies, over 50% of Americans have less than $1,000 in checking and savings accounts. So coming up with 4000, 5000, $8,000 is really an impossible hurdle. I want to give a little bit of the history of this bill because it has come up in council briefing and it will come up today in this item. This past December, actually, December last year, council central staff started writing this bill at my behest. And and that was in combination with other tenant rights legislation that my office had also asked for. Around the same time, Washington can survey tenants to find out what issues are the most important for renters. And as our survey progressed, it became increasingly, increasingly clear that the issue that my office was already raising was a very important one for renters. And in fact, the most important can organize an amazing press conference at the end of July this year to publicly unveil our legislation. And I formally introduced it to the council almost three months ago. And if you will recall, at that press conference where we unveiled it, we not only had renters and renters advocates there, we had labor unions and small businesses supporting this legislation. It was first discussed in committee on September 13th, over a month ago. But Councilmember Gonzalez, who is also a member of the committee and myself participating in the conversation. At that meeting, several amendments were discussed and incorporated, and a new version of the bill, including those changes, was vigorously discussed and voted on at the next meeting of the committee on September 27th. At that meeting, six council members participated and amendments were brought forward by councilmembers Suarez, Gonzalez and Herbold and perhaps others. Which were incorporated. Councilmember Johnson also moved an amendment that did not get the votes to be incorporated in the final vote out of committee was 5 to 0 recommendation for the Council to pass this ordinance either on October ten or on October 17th. Accommodating the request of Councilmember Suarez. We agreed to bring this to a vote on the 17th today, two and a half weeks after it was passed out of committee in case council members needed extra time to put together last minute amendments. It is worth, in my view, comparing the rigor of this process to that used for the resolution some council members rushed through to endorse building the North Precinct. That resolution was introduced and voted on on the same day. This bill has been discussed and has been given more time than most ordinances and tenants who are also working people who have to take time off work. They have come to council again and again to ask that we pass these basic protections. In reality, the tenant protections in this bill are extremely reasonable. Landlords or property owners will still collect the same money. They will just have to wait a little longer for the payment of the money that they are supposed to hold in escrow anyway until the end of tenancy. Everything else in the bill is normal behavior for most landlords anyway, or according to state law should be, for example, when the city enforces procedures for security deposits. That means the city will now have the ability to enforce some of the already existing state laws regarding how tenants get security deposits back. Landlords have to do a walkthrough with the tenant to establish a checklist of the condition of the apartment so that the tenant cannot be charged for a preexisting condition. This is already state law, but tenants will tell you how hard it is to get some landlords to follow this law. And the Seattle city's Department of Construction and Inspections expects this to be the biggest challenge to enforce. But the alternative is to just let tenants have their security deposit stolen. We have to be clear that the lobbyists on the ultra conservative Washington multi-family housing association who have opposed almost every tenant right bill passing passed by both the city and the state are putting real resources into derailing this bill despite how reasonable it is. They sent a letter to council asking and I quote, We ask that you send this bill to an appropriate committee and engage a stakeholder group to properly analyze this ordinance and its negative long term effects before it becomes law, unquote. We should be clear this is not a benign or innocent request for more time to improve the law. In that same letter, powerful landlords advocate for 50% upfront payments, defeating the most meaningful part of the bill, and request that the quote unquote negative effects be analyzed. In other words, they hope the council will send this back to committee in order to either kill the bill or to pass loopholes that will render the legislation ineffective. No one should be confused about what an action like that would be. I want to thank all the tenants who have sacrificed so much to come to testify to three council meetings on this topic. I also thank labor unions like your CW. Local 21 UAW Local 4121 two for coming and talking about housing rights. I also want to thank socialist, alternative and socialist students for being here, and I particularly want to thank the fantastic organizers from the Washington Community Action Network and the Seattle Education Association, and particularly Sochi. Michael, which for showing such incredible leadership. If we if we succeed in passing this today, it will be because of your our activism. And if we are delayed today, it will be because the senior council members who say that they are on the side of the tenants are actually on the side of the landlord lobby. But we will continue to fight until this council bill becomes law. I also particularly want to thank all the property owners and property managers who came to speak today in favor of moving fees. They are testament to the fact that there are landlords who are doing the right thing and that this law will not impact them negatively at all. This law, like every other tenants rights bill, is to make sure that renters do not have to depend on joining the landlord lottery in order to have fair renting conditions. We want all renters to be protected by the city law, and that is why the good property owners are also here speaking in favor of it . I also want to thank council members Herbold O'Brien, Suarez Gonzalez and Johnson for engaging with this bill thoroughly in committee. And I look forward to my colleagues support for this tenant rights bill. I would also urge Council members to remember that the burden of activism falls on ordinary working people, and the more we delay it, the more they will have to take time off work in order to fight for their basic rights. So I urge voting on this and passing this on a full council today. As I said before, the Energy and Environment Committee unanimously recommends five votes to nothing that the full council pass this ordinance. And lastly, I will say this council has just voted unanimously to support Initiative 75 against Citizens United, which means that the Council has taken a formal position that corporations should not be treated as people and that elected officials have to represent people. Let's vote yes on this bill to show that we truly stand with ordinary working people, not with corporate interests.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So once we have an open discussion on the bill on the floor and I know I am also aware there are some potential amendments as well. Councilmember Worse.
Speaker 4: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank all of you that are here today that provided public comment about this very important piece of legislation. I also want to thank my chair of my committee or her committee councilors who want in Herbert for all their work, as well as Ali from central staff. Before I go any further, I just want make one comment that discussing a potential bill is different than passing a law and then changing your mind a year later. So let me start with the facts and where we're at. On a personal note, I know what it's like not to be popular being a caseworker at the Saladin Center. To being a public defender. Legal services. To being a judge. And to representing tribes in underrepresented communities. But let me just say this. I believe in this proposed legislation. I believe in its intent. Its goals is protection of renters, particularly low income renters, and today's housing crisis and rising rents. My sole purpose in requesting that this very important piece of legislation be referred back to committee now allows. Back to Council member Sawant, in which I am also the vice chair, is to answer some very critical questions that I believe need to be addressed. What I want.
Speaker 0: Is I'm going to ask people refrain. I know it's tempting to just shout, but please let her speak.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I want this legislation to be able to withstand any legal challenges or concerns from the people it will affect. I want it to be able to be able to withstand any type of scrutiny and to ensure it is implemented, executed and applied with rigorous enforcement and cooperation. I want the transparency and public comment necessary to address outstanding issues from the public and those that provide housing, including the education, a real education piece. I'm committed to working with all stakeholders and as the Vice Chair of this particular committee, I look forward to working with council members who want Gonzalez, Herbold and Johnson to make sure that we do this right. I also want to see the Department of Construction and Inspection Inspection to work with our committee to make this legislation a model and a successful law. Hopefully, we can build a strong foundation and we can build upon this proposed law. As some people stated today, this law doesn't go far enough. And I agree. Furthermore, I want to incentivize landlords to lower moving costs. I don't want the unintended consequences of landlords raising rents. And also, more importantly, I would like this legislation after more consideration, to become the law of the city and applied with all deliberate speed. What I don't want I don't want this to make this a us versus them issue. I don't want to kill this bill. I don't want it to divide us as a city where it's clear we all want the same thing. We want to make it easier for renters to move in. We want to remove barriers, and we want to allow installment payments for moving fees. I don't want to see or create loopholes. I don't want this to become a wedge issue where we get bogged down in unrealistic objectives and expectations or have it stalled because some stakeholders believe they were not part of the process. I don't want this proposed legislation to pass and then sit on a shelf somewhere because like a lot of laws that I've seen since I've gotten this job, we did not do our due diligence. We weren't pragmatic on how we actually implement and enforce the law. As it stands, the proposed legislation would go into effect January 2017. That is true on September 27th. There are many issues we looked at and that was 20 days ago and now we're in the middle of a budget. So why my position is this and have some more to add. The benefits of referring this legislation back to committee far outweigh the burden of fixing things way after the fact, as I have witnessed in my short time here on city council. I don't want to see us set up for failure, but success. During this morning's hearing, you heard comment from all of us about how we felt about what we wanted to do with this legislation. This morning, I received a statement from CCI. They expressed support for having this legislation get more committee time. Stsci has been charged with implementing several new landlord tenant laws, including the Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance Real and the new source of income discrimination law. Given these changes, Stsci would like more time with with council members to ensure there's a coordinated effort for implementation and enforcement of all landlord tenant laws. I would like this work to be done at this table, not staff to staff. Again, I'm very supportive of the intent of this bill, and I believe I helped draft it. I met with many people from Kan. My staff and I looked at other states, the other 49 states to see what kind of legislation was out there and in fact, gave them ideas about how they could make this this piece of legislation stronger. The need for better access to housing continues to be a struggle in our current housing market. I also recognize that landlords have to take up the responsibility for providing housing to people. And just like we expect every other business to follow certain rules to ensure health, safety and access, we are asking this sector to do the same. I just want it done right. I voted this bill out of committee and when I did, I asked for more time for council members to deal with some outstanding issues and concerns from the last meeting from September 27th. Like I said, that was 20 days ago. During that meeting, council members had limited time to address seven new concerns with the language of the bill, its potential effectiveness, its ability to hold all parties accountable. One of those seven issues regarding enforcement had ample discussion, but it came to no resolution at that time, and the other six issues got very little time for discussion. In the interim, the enforcement issue was resolved at a staff level staff, not council members. This legislation has only had only two meetings in committee. The CCI inspection. The department tasked with enforcing and monitoring this legislation never got a seat at the table to discuss the bill. Implementation, enforcement and costs since September 27th me here. There have been several meetings with staff and council members all behind closed doors without the input of the public attempting to clarify the outstanding issues. I'm not suggesting anything nefarious was going on, but my concern was that these additional issues were not is resolved and done transparently at that table, not appear. Is the city going to require that tenants have a lawyer before changing the terms of their own lease with their landlord? What is the effect of holding fees that are typically collected the time of application before a lease agreement is written? Is there a way to use this legislation to incentivize lower moving costs? We haven't had a chance to share with the public what enforcement mechanism or outreach mechanisms have been put in place. Should we take the time to do that? We also have landlords in the city with experience doing payment plans with their tenants, specifically nonprofit housing providers and landlords that participate in the multi-family tax exemption programs. We should have them at the table and talk to them about their experiences or successes and learn from them how we're going to set up our law for success. And yes, I could do all of this in my office behind closed doors, but in my but it's my job to make sure legislation holds up to public scrutiny in the public interest. That's my job. Not to be popular, not to be right, but to do it right. And I we I believe we need transparency and that work should happen at the committee table. Given the potentially significant changes happening today and the questions still left to discuss, I motion that Council Bill 118817 be referred back to the energy environment committee for additional committee work.
Speaker 5: So why are you serious?
Speaker 4: This was not an easy decision. Excuse me, sir. If I can continue. This was not an easy decision for me. I have to admit, I have tremendous respect for my colleagues and the dedicated staff working on this very important issue. It's not important for me to be right. It's not important for me to be popular. I just want to get this done right. And I want this law to withstand and hold up time. And I want to make sure that Seattle remains a progressive city and working with our landlords and our renters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So what's on the table is a motion to refer back to the committee for the Bill Back to Customers Wants Committee. That discussion will take precedence over the amendment, so we have to hold off on the amendments to resolve this issue. I do want to remind both the audience, all my colleagues, that the bill in front of us is not effective until January one, 2017, even if passed. So if the work is done, it could still be done before the effective date. But right now we have a motion to refer back to the same Energy and Environment Committee. We can have more discussion, but before we do that, I'll ask if there's a second that's been moved in second. And so it's been moved to second to refer back to the committee. And I remind again my colleagues before the effective date, we would like more discussion from any of my colleagues and at the end of discussion we will have a vote since has been moved in a second councilmember back.
Speaker 4: Shall I just thank you. I just want to assure all my colleagues that I support this bill. I would vote for it today and I will vote for it if there are amendments. I just want to make sure that those who have asked for more time get the respect of having more time.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments from any of my colleagues, Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Sharma.
Speaker 1: And I will I will not be voting for the motion to refer. I support the bill. I understand the questions and concerns. But I having been through the committee meeting and had a chance to review this, I believe the legislation is sound legislation as it is today. I think that if there are things that continue to come up between now and January 1st or even in the future that we feel like we need to address, there's always the opportunity to do that as we are in the middle of our budget session. I don't know that there's a lot of opportunity for a while to get back into it, and my strong preference is to move forward today on this legislation, the sound piece of legislation that I think could have an immediate impact or a January one impact on a lot of folks that are struggling today.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Because it's.
Speaker 0: Cancer. I'm going back for the hearings, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 7: Thank you. My preference is as well to vote on it today. Last week on on Friday, I was asked whether or not I would actually support referring this bill back to my own committee, my own civil rights committee after the completion of the budget process at the end of November. I said at that time I wouldn't. I was asked to support re referring the bill to Councilmember Johnson's Planning and Land Use Committee again after the completion of the budget process at the end of November. Again, I said I couldn't. As has been said, the drafting for this bill began in February this year. It was sent to the Council President's office on July 13th, and this council voted to refer it to the Energy and Environment Committee on August 1st. On September 13th, the bill was discussed in committee. Several amendments were made. On September 27th, the bill was again discussed in committee with more amendments being made and the committee voting 5 to 0 in favor of the bill. Two council members at that time requested additional time before a full council vote. That time was granted and the commitment fulfilled. I do believe there's a great deal of urgency around this issue. Upfront housing costs are a major barrier to accessing housing, making more and more people unsheltered. Seattleites, including homeowners who have major concerns regarding our homelessness crisis, expect us to take concrete legislative steps now to get people into housing. Building more housing and shelters takes time, but reducing barriers to housing is something that we can do now and will work in the long term. For this reason, I told Councilmember so on last Friday that the only way I would support a re referral of this bill is on two conditions. One that it be referred to Councilmember Sawant's committee, not some other committee. And two, if the Arts Council Budget Chair, Councilmember Burgess, agreed to allowing Council members to want to schedule a committee meeting during our budget process, waiting until after the completion of the budget process would mean the very earliest the committee could meet would be on December 13th. I could not and cannot support that.
Speaker 0: So all eyes are on me at this point. That's all customers want.
Speaker 9: Appreciate the comments by councilmembers O'Brien and Herbold. For those of the members of the public who might be tempted to buy into this argument that has been made by some council members that there was an adequate discussion. I would urge you all to watch the Seattle Channel recording of this morning's briefing. You know, the council meets for a briefing at that table every Monday morning. And at that meeting, I thought Councilmember Horrible laid out a very good summary of how much detail had been discussed at the committee meetings. So there's not been any shortage of discussion on the details of the bill. And I think if you watch that video, you will know that every single aspect that that has come up was discussed thoroughly. Councilmember Juarez, who is a member of the energy committee, missed the first meeting when we discussed this on nine September 13. Now, sometimes council members have to miss meetings. I have that same experience, and that's fair enough. But if as an elected official, you miss a meeting, you cannot tell struggling renters that they have to wait for their rights to be upheld because you need more meetings. But more importantly, more importantly, there have been two and a half weeks between the committee vote and today. I have not seen Councilmember Juarez do anything with that time. It's not like she approached me for discussions about this. It's not like she has brought up new amendments. So I'm not clear at all that if I am to take this request for more time at face value, then what exactly is going to be accomplished by this further delay? That's not clear to me at all. As far as the claims that this needs to be legally sound. I want members of the public to know the city's law department and the city. Seattle Department, Department of Construction and inspections have thoroughly vetted this legislation. And at this point, all the departments that are relevant for this legislation have given us the go ahead. So there is no honesty in this claim that we haven't included the departments. As Councilmember Herbold said, we we've discussed this for months, and the first people we interacted with my office interacted with was the department because we wanted to make sure that this law was legally sound and all of that has been addressed. I also want to make it clear that when councilmembers say that they want transparency, the public please know that this process of moving this motion to delay was so transparent that I was not approached at any point about this. I knew about these plans to delay it and any attempt to send it to another committee, only because Councilmember Herbold share that with me, as she mentioned. So that's the transparency that they are talking about. And as far as their transparency that we have engaged in, we have brought these discussions out into the open. For months we have been discussing this out into the open for months. Landlords have been able to weigh on this. As I said before, they've spent 18 to over $18,000 in the last three months, which is more than the average Social Security recipient makes in a year. So they've had ample opportunity. And yet this bill passed out of Committee five to nothing. And I'm not sure that the council members who already voted yes on it, I'm not sure why they are now voting to delay it. If you're voted yes on committee, that vote has to count for something. So I'm I'm still unclear. I would prefer it if council members came out in the open and said they've had phone calls from landlords and they're trying to delay it at their behest. And the last point I'll make is this my sisters and brothers, this is what the corporate politicians mean when they talk about the Seattle process. It means, Jane, make up as much as possible, manage the rights of ordinary working people. And when it's for the police department that is cited by the Department of Justice and for corporations, then ram the process through to make it happen.
Speaker 8: And we will keep fighting.
Speaker 9: We will keep fighting to make sure not only this law is passed, but also that every tenant's right is upheld. And I will I will request all my colleagues who are going to vote yes on this motion to actually speak openly about why you're doing so and not just vote for it.
Speaker 3: I see a few folks.
Speaker 0: Few hands up, but I missed the order, so. Councilmember Herbold, did you want to clarify something after you saw your hand go up right after you spoke?
Speaker 7: I didn't need to clarify anything, but I was signaling for one of my two conditions potentially to be responsibly spoken.
Speaker 5: Okay. Yes.
Speaker 0: So in that condition, being the meeting in after budget or before budget or during budget?
Speaker 9: During budget?
Speaker 2: During the budget. Okay.
Speaker 0: So we have Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Burgess.
Speaker 0: Along with someone else in. Q after Councilmember Burgess. Okay, everyone. Okay. You get you'll get what you want. Everyone. Everyone. Put some skin in the game. Remember, I'm.
Speaker 3: Responding to Councilmember Herbold request. And so I have checked with council's central staff, which more than maybe any of us up here controls the schedule for the budget. And yes, we can accommodate.
Speaker 5: An additional meeting of council members who wants committee in November.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that clarifies that matter and consumer concerns. Did you want to respond back? Councilmember Herbold, so sorry.
Speaker 7: I'm making faces here.
Speaker 5: Okay. Like I do. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. So I am very aware that this bill doesn't actually go into effect until January 1st of 2017. And I guess from my perspective, there are there are three things that would be nice to see added into the bill. And if we had an opportunity to have another hearing in November in councilmembers, the wants committee, which I sit on, I, I think it would be helpful. The three things that I'd like to see substantively changed is I'd like to see an anti retaliation provision added to the ordinance. I'd like to make sure that there is a reconciliation between this proposed ordinance and the city's just cause ordinance, which prevents tenants from being unjustly evicted from their homes when they're on a month to month tenant agreement. And the last thing that I had brought up in the committee hearing, I think in early September or maybe late August, was related to what to do about landlords obligations to put money into an escrow account, that that would be an interest bearing account where that interest would go back to to tenants at the time that the tenancy relationship ends. And so if there is an opportunity to to go back to committee and develop those three things, which I don't think are loopholes, I think those are actually pro tenants and would be helpful to two tenants in this endeavor to make sure that we are shifting power from the landlord over to the tenant. I would really appreciate the opportunity to be able to develop those three additional policy proposals as part of this bill. The other thing that I would mention that, you know, one of the amendments that I had made early on is reflected in Section 12 of the existing bill, which creates an explicit requirement by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection to engage in community outreach and education that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for communities. And it instructs the department to work both with the Office for Civil Rights and with the Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs to make sure that we are setting up the appropriate language access provisions that are going to be necessary to educate, particularly tenants who may not speak English or understand the system that we have here in terms of how the landlord tenancy relationship exists. And during this budget process, I am seeking an additional $50,000 of funding to support that particular out outreach work. So I am committed to this this policy. If there's an opportunity to continue to work on it, I would I would support that to the extent that I'm allowed to propose these three additional policies as part of this of this council bill. And so long as it goes back to the Energy and Environment Committee, so that councilmember can continue to lead on this work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 10: So I concur with what I've heard from several of my colleagues related to not wanting to change at all the effective date of this legislation. I think the fact that we've got January 1st effective date doesn't preclude us from spending a little more time to make sure that we do get the legislation right. From my perspective, as the person who as committee oversees the Seattle Department of Construction and inspections, I've had a chance to talk with them a little bit about just sort of the implementation of this as it relates to other critical pieces of legislation that we've adopted this year and that I've been supportive of, including the first in time legislation as well as several of the other prohibitions on rent increases when unions don't make basic standards, basic maintenance standards provisions. I think that there's also a direct correlation here between the work that we're doing and the budget process. And I believe that there's a strong responsibility for me as the person who oversees the Department of Construction inspections to make sure that they've got adequate resources to do outreach to tenants and landlords, to make sure that everybody does understand the effectiveness of this law and its implementation. So, again, I concur with colleagues who have said that January 1st is still my intention. My intention isn't to delay this process in any way, shape or form. The fact that we have a little more time to bring this back to Councilmember Science Committee is something that I support without delaying the actual implementation, but making sure that we've got the. Funding in the Department of Construction inspections to really do the work. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: May I?
Speaker 0: Sure. COUNCILMEMBER Worse.
Speaker 4: I just want to address it. Something that. It's kind of the elephant in the room. I don't believe any of us here who want to work on this bill want to kill it. I don't. I don't want to create a landlord loophole. I'm not. I don't know where this landlord conspiracy and we're against tenants and renters come from that certainly it. It certainly doesn't come from. So when we talk about things, I think it's important for people to know that when I do hear from the CDC, who will be in charge is us. And they are telling me, telling us, told me today that they would like more time on this in light of what Councilmember Johnson just shared. And I want to add that I did speak to Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Herbert told me, and I concurred, and I could have done the same thing. And she said, Well, I'm going to let Councilmember Silent know what's going on. And I said, okay, great. I didn't think it was a big secret. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I think that when people make this personal, I think people need to know in this room that I actually work really well with council members who want. I consider her a friend and I actually enjoy.
Speaker 8: Work my whole life.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, I hope so much.
Speaker 8: Was will find it. Well, my wife kicked me out now. Oh.
Speaker 4: So with that, my hope is that we can create this and make it a incredible law that we can be proud of, that we can implement, that doesn't sit on the shelf somewhere, and that a year from now we're not fighting about definitions, enforcement, education, how do we implement it and who does it? This isn't about not passing this law. It's just asking for the right and some more time for it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So so I'm going to call for the question and I'm going to ask people vote by show of hands. And before I do that, I want to make a few statements. There's been a few very negative, I think perhaps allegations or accusations that were made. And I first heard as an example about a motion for a delay this afternoon. And when I first heard it, I grabbed my colleagues and said, How do you want to handle this? I pointed out quickly that the effective date is January, because if it did get referred, we all wanted to go back to Customer Response Committee in July. We had to make a decision as a council as to what committee this would even go to, because one could argue it was a housing issue, one could argue was a planning land use issue. But we know Councilmember Want is probably been the strongest advocate for tenants and a leader in that regard, probably nationally known for that. So very appropriate for her to shepherd this through. When this does pass, this is going to be a glorious day. It's going to be nine in and. Oh, and whether it passes today or not to me is, I think, gives some closure. But I don't think we're going to open up in the middle of a budget. We're right in the middle of the budget. So I want it to be a glorious day to speak volumes to this country about what we're trying to do for renters. And I just don't like, quite frankly, the personal attacks, because I assume everyone up here are trying to trying to good do good by the city. So having said that, this motion is on the table to refer Council Bill 118817 back to the Energy and Environment Committee. There was some discussion, by the way, about there could be a meeting during November. So all those in favor.
Speaker 9: Can ask for a clarification.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 9: You mean do we need to include in the motion that it will be during the budget process that we will have a special meeting?
Speaker 0: So I don't. I'll put it this way. I don't think it has been a motion, but I'm just stating on the record that everyone here has full intentions to have a meeting for you to have a meeting during the budget so it won't be a substantive part. You see this heads nodding with the TV going that that means, yes, we're going to have a meeting in November. And so we'd be castigated if we didn't. So not part of the motion, but part of the understanding on the record. Yes. So what was that date in November you back to. Know how did you.
Speaker 4: By December 13th.
Speaker 0: By December 13th. Okay. So what we're going to do comes from Swan is I'll make it in the motion that will have a report back date by your committee on December 13th, said on Monday I hope that Sunday what I know can we we by December 12th so I'll start over and said cleaner but Councilmember Gonzales yeah
Speaker 7: . My preference would be if there's no objection by councilmembers the want is that the motion be couched in a way where it would be by December 13th. So it's the latest, but it could come back sooner if if it's ready.
Speaker 9: I would prefer that, actually. And also.
Speaker 3: Just I'll say on this for.
Speaker 9: Just to remind the council, several councilmembers have already taken official leave for for many of the weeks in December, starting late November. So it's better we do it before late November, actually, because we want the council to be present.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 0: But the report back will be on or before December. We said 712 or 1312. Okay. So. So we'll schedule the meeting when we get a good turnout. So let me clean my motion up a little bit or clean. Councilmember This motion up. Council Member No, I'm not, sir. Not in Seattle. Councilmember Suarez's motion is to refer the Council Bill 118817 to the Energy Environment Committee and a report and with the understanding that there'll be a report on or before December 12th. That's the motion. Is there a second? All those of favor? Vote I in. Raise your hands by all the polls. Vote no and raise your hands. No, sir. The vote, the motion refer pass 72 and we will move to the next. We'll move to the next agenda item.
Speaker 2: On the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. Agenda Item five Council 118 683 Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes responding to the Resolution 315 77 to increase the plan's emphasis on race and social justice equity and improve its reliability, modifying and adding new goals and policies in several elements of the plan that | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 7.24.040, 7.24.050, 7.24.060, 7.24.070, and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); adding new Sections 7.24.035, 7.24.036, 7.24.038, 7.24.110, 7.24.120, 7.24.130, 7.24.140, 7.24.150, 7.24.160, 7.24.170, 7.24.180, 7.24.190, 7.24.200, and 7.24.210 to the SMC; and repealing Section 7.24.090 of the SMC; all to limit the amount of security deposits and non-refundable move-in fees, to allow residential tenants to pay security deposits, non-refundable move-in fees, and last month’s rent in installments, and to establish enforcement provisions for Chapter 7.24. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10172016_CB 118683 | Speaker 2: On the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. Agenda Item five Council 118 683 Amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes responding to the Resolution 315 77 to increase the plan's emphasis on race and social justice equity and improve its reliability, modifying and adding new goals and policies in several elements of the plan that describe the city's objective for distributing housing and employment growth and amending Section 12.72. The committee recommends that the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President Accountable. 118683. Update Seattle 2035 which is our comprehensive plan. We update the plan every year, but this year as part of a major update and has been in the works for probably about five years now. As I mentioned this morning, we've been discussing this bill for about six months now through no less than ten committee meetings, as well as eight meetings of other committees and two public hearings. We've heard a lot of testimony and received a lot of comments, and the committee made significant changes to the plan with over 180 amendments. As we all know, Seattle is growing and changing rapidly, and we're lucky to be experiencing such continued prosperity. But the city changes to this plan are needed to help us respond to and guide this growth so that our city can continue to be an equitable city, to address climate change impacts and to ensure that we have homes that are affordable to all of our residents. I know that there are a couple of amendments that we'll be discussing, so maybe I'll save my overarching comments till after we've had a chance to discuss those amendments.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Johnson. Should we take the House mayoral? Should I go first? Would you like to go first?
Speaker 7: I believe Amendment One is the community involvement element.
Speaker 0: Okay, you go first.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So Amendment One to Council Bill 11 8683 is to clarify sections of the new community involvement element without changing the effect of 11 8683. It adds a number of definitions defines the term community plan is a plan that also specifically addresses neighborhood or geographic based planning as a plan developed in collaboration with the community around a shared vision that includes a specific set of strategies to meet the community and city goals. It also amends the discussion under inclusive and equitable community involvement. On page one and attachment three as as follows. So that it reads Equity is essential to any community involvement process to improve relationships and outcomes. The city is committed to conducting inclusive and equitable community involvement that effectively reaches a broad range of community members, particularly those affected by communities decisions. There are a number of other amendments specifically relating to considering specific areas with.
Speaker 4: Specific.
Speaker 7: Characteristics when making a decision about allocating city resources for community planning and including neighborhood planning, and those specific areas being areas designated as urban centers or villages in the comprehensive plan. Areas with high risk of displacement. Areas with low access to opportunity in distressed communities. Areas expressing significant improvements in transit service. Areas experiencing a growth rate significantly higher or lower than anticipated in the comprehensive plan. Areas identified identified for multiple capital investments that could benefit from coordinated planning in areas experiencing environmental justice concerns. I worked with members of the DNC, specifically Irene Wall and Cindy Barker, in both developing the element as well as folks from OPD and Councilmembers. And I really appreciate Councilmember Johnson allowing for additional time to do the required legal noticing around this this new element.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. We'll vote on the amendments separately. So, so, so.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 0: So we did have testimony. We we didn't have enough time, but we had we had for 40 minutes. I'll tell you what. I'll let me finish the amendments first and I'll address the public comment issue after. So Councilmember Herbold has made amendment. I'll describe that as amendment number one to council bill 118683.
Speaker 10: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of Amendment one, say I. I opposed the idea that as First Amendment, I have a Second Amendment I like to describe and it's clarifying the meaning of environmental justice and C 12.3 and clarifying what I believe. And I think what the public believes is the public health and the safety concerns that a community may experience. You may have and of course, this is the section where it talks about what characteristics should be considered when allocating city resources for community planning. And I thought that that was a an appropriate clarification. So I'll describe my amendment as amendment number two and I will move that would be adopted. Second case has been moved in. Second, to adopt amendment number two, any questions? All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. And before I hear Council Member Johnson or Councilmember O'Brien or others speak on the count plan, there's been at least some friendly outburst that there's a need for a public comment. And in fairness to those individuals, we had many folks sign up on the rental legislation and we only had an I didn't even get through. Maybe they're still 30 or 40% of the folks that I didn't get to. And so they might have been at the bottom of list, which sometimes happened. So if one would like to move to vote on extending public comment on the comp plan, I would entertain that motion. If not, I will proceed without that. So moved and seconded. So it's been moved on. Second, and to extend public comment for the comp plan. All those in favor say I, I opposed the ayes have it. So why don't we give Kris and others a public comment sheet? And what I'm going to try to multitask, I shall lay one out there on the comp plan. We're all saying, oh, well, okay, now I got to sort of go through six sheets, though, so I'll find it. And while I do that, Councilmember Johnson, why don't the council members have some dialog and we will have public comment before we vote. Okay. So did anyone else want to speak? Because I'm going to need a minute to go through this.
Speaker 10: Maybe I'll just sing a few bars about the thank you's before I speak to the underlying bill. So there's a lot of folks who put a lot of time and energy into this, not only this year, but over several years. And I just want to lift up those folks who have spent a lot of time and energy with me on the comprehensive plan while you sort through all those sheets to try to identify which folks are going to come forward. But I want to say thanks to Tom Hauger and Patrice Carroll, who are here in the audience from the Office of Planning and Community Development, and their bosses who now I'm going to start referring to as Sam and Diane, which I think is kind of a funny little alliteration that I didn't put together until today. But Sam, myself and Diane Narasaki, who I think have done a really great job of championing this through the last several years. Susie Levi from Councilmember O'Brien's office and Andrea Kranz from Councilmember Herbold office have spent countless hours working with us on this topic. Eric McConaghy and Liz Whitson, who are unsung members of our council center staff, have helped shepherd us through several of these, and their supervisor, Carol Freeman, has been intimately involved in many discussions as well. And I'd be remiss if I didn't especially thank Amy Gore from my office, who has really been a rock on this topic, helped us not only get through, as I'll reiterate the ten discussions that we had on this topic in our committee, the eight discussions that we had on this topic and other committees, the two public hearings that we had on this topic. And that was just this year alone in the council process, let alone all the other public processes that we've had on this topic over the last four years. So I think we've spent a lot of time on the comp plan this year. And the great thing about the comprehensive plan is that if you didn't get what you wanted this year, there's always next year because we take the comprehensive plan up every single year.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. I'm going to do a little pivot strategy on the sign up sheet. It's just going to be hard for me to do that. So I'm just going to ask that you identify yourself and I will allow you 2 minutes in any order because I think we just have a handful of people. So because I can't go through all the sheets and there are more people that are not here than are here.
Speaker 5: 40 And I think most of us are like right after that. So look through 40 or 50.
Speaker 0: Okay, well, let's just try it my way.
Speaker 5: And I get 2 minutes. I'll do it in one. Okay.
Speaker 0: I'm going to do it. Okay, that's.
Speaker 5: Good. Yeah. So on the comp plan.
Speaker 0: Your name.
Speaker 5: Please? Cindy Barker.
Speaker 0: Cindy.
Speaker 5: At the plus meetings, I talked last time as I voted out about getting the comp plans, sausage making. Right. Well, I still think it's not quite right. It's pretty chunky at the moment. At the close meeting, there was literally pages and dozens of changes that were passed in in sweep. They were not discussed in detail. And I understand that there was a need to focus on policy, but a lot of stuff got put in. So there was a lot of little discussion and the timing was very bad for the public hearing. There was a lot of input prior, but the amendments have been very confusing and our ability to give good comments when we have 1 minutes is very hard and we're not seeing our letters acknowledged, so we're not even sure if you're reading it and absorbing it. So you should not pass this today. Those pledged changes need to be given a little more review, especially ones around concurrency in the form change and how how that concurrency is handled. Amendment One does show you what can be done with a little more time. Gaps were filled and community engagement made stronger, and I strongly support Lisa's improvement. But on your respective committees, you have to live with these results. You have to make the policy based on the comp plan. And I don't think you're seeing all the connections. For example, if you allow housing on city open space, do you have to deduct that from the available land open space? That is in the complaint goals there. Just you don't have a coherent plan. We want a coherent, comprehensive plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Cindy. You're done. Correct. Yes, I done.
Speaker 3: I'm doing okay. That's right. And and I'm here to ask you today not to vote for the 2035 comprehensive plan. And I've got the materials, if you would care to review them in a huge hurry, illustrating the details of what's wrong with this thing. There's, I think, a severe lack of informed public consent that Sandy referred to. People like people like her know what's in it. But I think their input has been pervasively, thoroughly ignored. And the people who attend public hearings and stuff like that, they get a superficial presentation that avoids controversial elements. And this very hearing canceled but then brought back when people are already on their way to work, kind of exemplifies that. They have to say this legislation is being advanced by the council faction, whose appreciation of Seattle public sentiment last week was cast into some question. And it doesn't have to be signed up today. Thank you, Mr. Kaye. Chris?
Speaker 0: Chris Lehman. Go ahead. I see Chris Lieberman's name in here and I see. Colleen's name. Colleen is actually Colleen McAleer. Yes. I see you're way up there in 38. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you for hearing our comments and thanks for allowing the extra time. Colleen McClure with Aloha Community Club. And we've been at this as long as you guys have been at this, as far as putting comments in to make it a really good plan to us, Seattle's growing and we're totally in favor of that. The process, despite the fact that it seems to be going for two years, seems still a little bit rushed. Folks who are working during the days don't always have the opportunity to get in and comment at this time. There's a lot of amendments. A really good.
Speaker 4: One that had or.
Speaker 2: Two that came out today were for those. The Flume process also needs to be retained because little up zones, the code, the way it's written says small things can get up soon for our neighborhood. We've lost a lot of affordable housing around Children's Hospital, which is used for families, students and lower income folks. So the burden is upon them and the flume process really does vet that. And so we are really anxious to retain that process. Any time you're changing affordable residential units of any type, we also are looking for more of the preservation of the urban tree canopy. Today we just signed on to the Urban Bird Treaty for the migrating birds. They live in trees and if we have legislation that's totally infilling backyards. Etc. Those happen to be gone for critters and disturbs the environment.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Barking needs to be better balanced. Small businesses. People are running from door to door with house cleaning services, tradesmen. Those are the folks that.
Speaker 5: We.
Speaker 2: Just need to present. That is an opportunity for them to.
Speaker 0: Thanks for coming.
Speaker 2: Around for listening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Chris Lehman coming.
Speaker 5: The Council president correctly stated that this meeting was canceled. Under state law, you cannot act on this comp plan ordinance. Use this opportunity to improve it as urged by the previous speakers and the public. And and most of you probably can't know that from what the mayor and the chair's propaganda say. But this repeals almost all of the comp plan. It even dropped the word sustainable from the title symbolically restored by your committee. But unfortunately, without putting back the repealed provisions that protect sustainability and livability, the once balanced urban village strategy becomes growth at any cost. Repealed are policies against demolition and displacement, barriers to spot rezoning policies for real yards and large trees, and valuing parking as well as for mobility, safety and vitality. To say the least, this draft is not ready. It is unbalanced and and a new it is a new comp plan without the analysis, transparency and outreach associated with the associated with the original passage in 1994 for real outreach and needed improvements. Send it back. Do not act on it today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Ward, according to bites at the apple, by the way, but as you point out.
Speaker 3: The other one is a separate list.
Speaker 0: Okay, very.
Speaker 3: Good. And a separate thing. So it's actually not. I think this would be a very sad day in Seattle if we passed the 2035 comprehensive plan to vastly change from the current plan, which was actually fairly changed from the previous plan, which gave a lot more benefits to to residents. So this will be a tremendous boon to developers. It'll make housing completely unaffordable, even for the first month's rent. Addressing the previous issue from earlier. It'll be completely unaffordable for most renters and increase homelessness substantially. So that's going to impact that issue as well. And for most homeowners, it will greatly increase taxes, which will increase gentrification in the South End as well. There are so many changes in the comp plan, hundreds and hundreds of pages many times that this woman spoke earlier about you couldn't understand it if you don't speak English. But even for those of us who keep track of this was hundreds and hundreds of pages. We cannot keep track of that. So I suggest that you delay this just like you were delaying. Just please.
Speaker 0: Sir.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Richard Ellis, and I'm.
Speaker 3: A homeowner in the Wedgewood community.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Rob Johnson, for representing me. I'm here to talk about trees because the current comprehensive plan amendments basically try to neuter a lot of tree protection for.
Speaker 3: One councilmember, Mike O'Brien.
Speaker 5: There is nothing in this at all in the when you talk about climate and climate change, it doesn't talk doesn't mention the word trees at all. If you look under climate, what we're going to do, you like my hat?
Speaker 3: That's what we're trying to do. It says don't.
Speaker 5: Do the track.
Speaker 7: I was just making sure I knew with the gist.
Speaker 5: Of mention of trees in regards to carbon storage, urban island heat effects were stormwater runoff. Where's the beef when it comes to climate change? I mean, trees, urban forest are a big part of this and there's not even a mention in the comprehensive plan. Other things. The language has changed. If you look in the language talks, instead of saying protect anymore, it says promote doesn't say protect trees. It says now promote trees. This is a neutering. The your own urban forestry commission has made a lot of recommendations hardly any have been installed in this project. You have. Using golfers. Challenging things like acknowledged the need to balance industrial uses with environmental areas. The dormant greenbelt environmental justice issues related to the nearby residential areas which often have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Household can wrap up, please. Can you wrap up, please?
Speaker 5: The point is, you're not even following your own Urban Forestry Commission that has been giving you recommendations. Have you read the recommendation? Why are they known as a very corporate?
Speaker 0: Can you wrap up, please? Thank you very much, sir. I don't think I don't see any more public comment for the plan. Do any of my colleagues wish to discuss the matter any more? I'm don't saying I see two hands up as see consumer herbal.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just wanted to speak to the fact that Council Member Johnson's approach to deliberations around the comp plan and having each of the committees schedule time to discuss areas related to the comp plan that are relevant to our committee. Work gave me an opportunity to propose and successfully pass amendments that relate to work I'm responsible for. As I understand a public utilities work related to economic development, work related to arts, culture, music. So that was, I think, very, very a useful exercise to get greater engagement from from council members on the comp plan. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, guys. Herbal. Katherine Johnson, do you have any closing remarks? I think you said them, but if you'd like to, I'll give you one more opportunity here.
Speaker 10: Just a few. That'd be great. Thank you. Council President. You know, one of the things that I think is critically different about the comprehensive plan after we spent a lot of time working on it in committee, is the community involvement element, which the original proposal Sundown did not have. And we spent a lot of time in committee talking about that community involvement element. And I appreciate the amendment that you brought forward today, Councilmember Herbold, because I do believe community involvement is going to be critical for us as we move forward and and really becoming the city that I know we want to become, the element that we worked on stresses, outreach and engagement to a broader group of folks to ensure that we're hearing from in responding to historically underrepresented communities, which is critical. It's a creation of a totally new chapter, which I also think was critical and ensures that that chapter focuses on a coordinated, strategic approach, not just for all decision making in the city, not just for land use and transportation and parks and open space, but everything that we think will determine and impact people's lives. It's got some really important changes to help us to continue to address climate change, including a goal of increasing our trees canopy, which was not included in any of our previous comprehensive plans and many policies, updating our approach to transportation to help keep people and goods moving safely and reduce our reliance on single occupancy vehicles. It includes goals and policies to implement many of the hollow recommendations around addressing for our affordable housing crisis, including policies to help us track and mitigate displacement, allowing for more flexibility in urban villages and basing growth estimates on transit access and displacement, which we can use to mitigate negative growth impacts in areas that risk displacement. It does not include the boundary changes that were proposed and are still being discussed by the Harlow focus groups, as well as the neighborhood boundary workshops that many of my colleagues are aware of. It also does not include the implementation of proposed zoning changes to increase heights in urban villages. Both of those changes are going to be coming as part of next year's process. We've got a full nine months to a year to continue to work on those boundary changes and zoning changes within urban villages. The last thing that I would say is I'm really proud as a fifth generation Seattle, out of the work that Councilmember Herbold and I did to help protect the assets that make Seattle really unique, the strategies for increasing open space and parks in innovative ways and work to preserve and inventory cultural and historic assets, I think are going to be really critical as we continue to see a growth and an influx of folks in this city. As a fifth generation Seattle, I'm really proud of the work that we're doing to really respond to the pressures of growth in a way that is inclusive but also recognizes our city's history. And I think that this council process promise, though not perfect, according to many members of the public, I think has been a great step forward. So I encourage my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. If there are no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Hi Swan. I beg pardon. Burgess Gonzalez I hi Juarez I Herbold I President Harrell. I am favored on a post.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in the chair was sign it we've gone through. Margin items. Is there any further business to come for the council? I'm seeing that. So for that, we stand adjourned. Thank you. Have a great day. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes responding to Resolution 31577 to increase the Plan’s emphasis on race and social equity and improve its readability; modifying or adding new goals and policies in several elements of the Plan that describe the City’s objectives for distributing housing and employment growth; and amending Sections 5.72.020, 23.34.008, 23.45.516, 23.47A.012, 23.47A.013, 23.49.056, 23.49.058, 23.51A.004, 23.58A.040, 23.69.030, 23.75.002, and 23.84A.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to revise references to the updated Comprehensive Plan. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10102016_CB 118798 | Speaker 1: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Energy Environment Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 788 related to the City Light Department authorizing department to participate in the call for an independent systems operators, energy and balance market, including authorizing the execution of the necessary agreements with the California Independent System Operator, as well as any additional agreements necessary or convenient for implementation and participation. As in California, Dependent Systems Operators Energy and Balance Markets Committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Salaam Thank you, brother. This is an ordinance to authorize Seattle to be allowed to explore entering a California energy imbalance market. City Light estimates that it will cost 8 million in infrastructure to join the market and they expect to make 4 to 23 million per year in additional net wholesale revenue once they have entered. This could be a good thing for the city, particularly if it allows you to put more of our clean hydropower on the market to replace the natural gas energy generation that, for example, private companies like Puget Sound Energy Use. However, it is also important for the Council to have sufficient oversight. After all, the last time City Light was part of an energy imbalance market in California. That was when the Enron debacle happened. To be clear, City Light assures us that they have protections in place to avoid something similar in the future. But again, for us as a council, it should be a question of adequate oversight. This got this council bill was amended in committee to allow City Light to explore entering the energy imbalance market while retaining for council the opportunity to take further action before it is finalized. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends passing this Council bill as amended, and I just wanted to note that in the written agenda it leaves out the words as amended. But I just want to make sure the council knows that this is as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Swan, are there any further comments or questions on this legislation?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Gonzalez I was unable to stay for the ultimate vote in last discussion of this particular council bill, but I have significant concerns about supporting this particular council bill. I think that while the amended version does provide some additional oversight, I think there are a lot of questions in my mind about the amount of money that needs to be spent by Seattle City Light just in order to even engage in that exploratory process and have strong reservations about the fiscal implications of moving forward even with the Council bill as amended. My understanding is that the proposal from Seattle City Light would require the spending of several millions of dollars over the next three years just to begin the process of entering into the energy imbalance market. So I have concerns about this particular. Bill. And we've had I've had conversations with central staff who have told me that waiting a year to pass this bill would not significantly impact Seattle City Lights ability to consider exploring entering into this energy imbalance market in the future . So I'm going to be voting no on this council bill today because although the bill, as amended, does create some oversight, I actually think that they need to go back to the drawing board and do some more work before I would be willing to support even an exploratory phase of entering into the energy imbalance market in California
Speaker 1: . Thank you. Councilman Gonzales. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I. Councilmember Gonzales. I appreciate those concerns. And actually, I share those. The idea that the city council would ensure that the city would invest $8 million on this is a big chunk of money and raises a lot of concerns. The amendments, as I understand it, would prevent them from doing any investments and would require them to come back to council to get our approval before they can proceed on entering it. The questions we asked the table were about that, the financial payoff, and also about the risks and making sure the oversight was in place. And my understanding with the bill as amended is that they can come back. This this gives them the ability to move forward, to do the research and come back to us. But they cannot proceed in entering the imbalanced market without further approval from the council and making those types of investments.
Speaker 4: Yes, I know. Just very quickly, I won't repeat what Councilman Brown said. I just wanted to say that if you look at the amendments that were presented as part of the amended bill, they're not minor. They actually changed the bill from allowing City Light to do it, to allowing them to explore and then requiring them to come back to council.
Speaker 1: Very good. And we can very easily suspend the rules to ask Tony killed off to tell whatever the heck he's telling Councilman Burgess to tell us that we can have a little dialog. But Councilman Gosar, you want to speak?
Speaker 3: Sure. I mean, I again, I'm not saying that the amendments aren't an improvement from the original version of the bill. There certainly is an improvement to the oversight functions that were absent from the original council bill. You know, my my concern is that I heard from central staff and Tony is here and perhaps ready at their at the ready when we're when we're ready to hear from him. But my my concern is that they're from my recollection of the presentation is that there were significant upfront costs that would be associated with even standing up an exploratory process of this. And this is this is a significant investment. We've never engaged in the imbalance market, an energy imbalance market before. It's a relatively new industry. It's only been around for 2 to 3 years. And so my preference would be that we give ourselves, as a city council, an opportunity to learn more about what this energy imbalance market is and to give Seattle City Light a greater opportunity to tell us exactly what the risks are here. And and from the materials that I have reviewed, from the conversations that I've had with central staff. I personally do not feel that I have enough information to truly appreciate the the risks associated with giving Seattle City light the permission to move forward with even an exploratory phase. I get nervous about saying it's just an exploratory phase because we still have to invest resources to do that exploration. And then there is created sort of an expectation that we're going to continue to move forward. So again, I think the amendments are an improvement, but my preference would be to not move forward with this council bill at this juncture. So I'm going to vote no unless there is interest in in holding it to give the Seattle city light some additional time to get us more information.
Speaker 1: So if there's no objection, I'm going to suspend the rules, allow Mr. Cool off to address the Council and Mr. cut off. Perhaps you could start off with at least one of my concerns is how time sensitive this is and maybe the intended or the actual effect of the amendments in terms of still having a safeguard against utility in light of the concerns Councilmember Gonzales has raised.
Speaker 0: Yes, it's it's not time sensitive, other than every with every year that passes City Light and in theory, misses the opportunity to make the additional revenues that it could make by trading in the market in California. And if their analysis is correct, that would be foregone revenue of anywhere from 4 to 20 plus million dollars. The amendments that that I put in were specifically to prevent City Light from making any major investments until they had come back to the Council and provided a better understanding of the costs that would ultimately be be borne to enter into the market and also the revenues that they would expect to receive. We're expecting if the Council did move forward with this, that our city light would come back to the council early next year, probably by the end of the first quarter, with a more detailed description and analysis and information that would make a the final decision easier for the council.
Speaker 1: Councilman Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 3: The fiscal bill associated with this camp or this fiscal note, especially with this council bill.
Speaker 2: Estimates a annual gross benefit of $4 million a year.
Speaker 3: But Councilmember Gonzales mentioned a cost of the study, and I don't see that the cost noted in the fiscal note.
Speaker 0: The cost. It's not up the study. If city lights were to actually enter the market, it would need to stand up new software and hardware systems to support it. And that's approximately $8 million. It might be as high as ten, but right now the high end of the estimate is $8 million. That would be an ongoing cost for for additional staffing at City Light of around about two and a half million dollars a year. That was the caution that led me to recommend the the amendment to the bill that we would not spend the $8 million and we would not engage the additional staff until the council had better information.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Especially considering the fact that this information was not contained in the fiscal notice, I.
Speaker 2: Believe is our our policy.
Speaker 1: So when. Possible councilmembers. I'm going I'm sort of heading down the path of holding it for a few weeks, and I don't think the supporters of it have a lot of heartburn over that. But. Councilmember Burgess, go ahead.
Speaker 0: That's what I was going to raise, that if we could have a motion to hold this for a couple of weeks, I would make that motion.
Speaker 1: So I'm looking at October 31st is three weeks. That should give us plenty of time to work on that and a lot if we're doing budget. So I'd.
Speaker 7: Second the.
Speaker 1: Motion. Okay, I'll make a motion to hold it till October 31st has been seconded by Councilman O'Brien. All those in favor of holding it for three weeks. I, I opposed I have to. We'll hold this until October 31st and hopefully talk it council briefing or other opportunities to discuss it. Before we move.
Speaker 0: On.
Speaker 1: Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Department to participate in the California Independent System Operator’s Energy Imbalance Market, including authorizing the execution of any necessary agreements with the California Independent System Operator, as well as any additional agreements necessary or convenient for implementation and participation in the California Independent System Operator’s Energy Imbalance Market. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10102016_CB 118802 | Speaker 1: Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 2: Agenda.
Speaker 3: Item to cancel 118802 relating to the rates, terms and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2017 and 18. Amending C.R. Mr. Code Sections 21.40 9.3 or 30.0 40.0. 52.0. 55.0. 47.0. 58.06 60.0. 65.0. 81.0 82.3 85.1 ten. And repealing CMC Section 21.40 9.0 80 in connection with the committee made no recommendation with the divided report with Councilmember O'Brien in favor and council member. So want to.
Speaker 2: Post.
Speaker 1: Can I'll turn to Councilmember O'Brien for this one to present it or have you guys cast member branch like to present the in favor position.
Speaker 7: Actually looks to me typical of the other work.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 4: The bill just in general in adopted highlights 2017 2018. Customer rates on average rates are increased in 2017 by this ordinance by 5.6%, which is consistent with the revenue requirements that were laid out in Seattle City Lights strategic plan, which we all voted on. But as I've explained several times in the past, I'm opposed to these rate increases because it really divides its costs into rate clauses that result in residential customers paying a significantly higher rate per kilowatt hour than big corporations like Boeing and Nucor Steel. I don't think that is right. And what I have recommended in the past, and I continue to recommend that we revisit the way the rate classes are organized and actually eliminate the rate clauses. And in that case, we could have revenue requirements met by a different rate structure in which the increases proportionately go out to big business as they do on residential customers. But I've not heard agreement on that from other council members, which is why we had the rate we have the rate ordinance that we have in front of us. So if council members agree with me, then we can vote against it and come up with a different scenario. But otherwise I will be voting no on this ordinance.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember O'Brien, for the in favor position.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So as Councilmember Swan said, this does implement the rates generally and consistent with the strategic plan. I share some of the concerns from councilmembers who want about the different rate classes. At the same time, I have not seen a new rate policy that wouldn't have unintended consequences that undermine some of the other policies that are really important to me. And so in the interim, I continue to support the existing rate classes and do support the the rate path as outlined in the strategic plan and these rate increases that would achieve that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comes from Brian. Any further comments or questions from my colleagues case? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. I'm sorry, i move to pass council bill 118802 second. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Whereas now O'Brien, I so want.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 3: Make sure. Burgess Gonzalez I Herbold Johnson, President Harrell.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: Eight in favor one.
Speaker 1: Opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it please read agenda item number three.
Speaker 0: So for as.
Speaker 2: I said, nine.
Speaker 1: Seven, nine. What is a nine.
Speaker 7: I know.
Speaker 1: We can't. That is a yes. I'm on the yes side so yeah.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: 77 in favor to opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for that clarification.
Speaker 2: Old English.
Speaker 7: On back some credibility their.
Speaker 1: Agenda item number three please please read that into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the rates, terms, and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2017 and 2018; amending Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Sections 21.49.030, 21.49.040, 21.49.052, 21.49.055, 21.49.057, 21.49.058, 21.49.060, 21.49.065, 21.49.081, 21.49.082, 21.49.085, and 21.49.110, and repealing SMC Section 21.49.080, in connection therewith. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10102016_Res 31714 | Speaker 2: Agenda.
Speaker 3: Item three resolution 31714 reaffirmed Seattle's commitment to the Climate Action Plan and setting expectations for increasing commercial building energy efficiency through the year 2035. The committee recommends the full council drop the resolution as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember So what?
Speaker 4: So for this, I would turn it over to guys from Iran.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This bill does a number of things. And I just want to give folks a little bit of background here. Earlier this year, the council passed legislation to require mandatory tune ups in existing buildings of certain sizes. And we talk about tune ups. This is making sure that buildings on a go on on a regular basis. And they phased in from the largest buildings to smaller sized commercial buildings. Can we in an update make sure that their mechanical infrastructure has been optimized to minimize the amount of energy that's been used? It was a great step forward and folks throughout the community are planning to implement that. And our hope is that by simply going in and making sure that your existing HVAC and lighting equipment is optimized to work as well as possible, we will start to achieve the energy savings that we need to from the building sector to be on our trajectory to be carbon neutral by 2050. But it's not there's not certainty around that. And 2050 is going to come sooner than we think. And so what this bill does is it recognizes that plan is in place. It calls on the sustainability environment to monitor the results of that, which won't be fully known for another about five years. But if we see that we are not on that trajectory to and the bill defines that to reach carbon neutrality, it would call upon implementing some mandatory requirements for energy upgrades in those buildings at that point sometime five or six years out from now.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Brainard. Any further comments or questions? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Just a question. So the report back that we're asking for is 2022. Can you talk a little bit about what we're.
Speaker 3: Expecting to occur between now and then and whether or.
Speaker 2: Not there will be some report back from O.C. on on that work? It just seems like a long time. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So I don't have it corrected. Sure. Yeah. I don't have the previous resolution in front of me, so I'm going to speak from my recollection here. But there were three essentially tiers of buildings that would phase in from the largest on down to, I think, buildings to 50,000 square feet. Those get phased in towards the end of this decade, I believe, 18, 19 and 20. And so for us to monitor what kind of savings we would need a year of full operation under the tune up to compared to the previous year to see if we're on that trajectory. And as these phase in thing would take a couple of years for them all to phase in to see if the net effect is going to be enough. And so we will certainly be monitoring those. The reality with with these types of changes is that there's a fair amount of lead time necessary for folks to make it . And the reason why we're passing this legislation today, even though there is some really long lead times, is to just acknowledge that if we get to a point five years from now, six years from now, and we're not on track, we don't have two or three years to wait to debate, we want to signal immediately that we're going to switch to something else.
Speaker 3: But we know that. So for the phase in that's supposed to happen in 2018.
Speaker 2: I understand that the the the results of.
Speaker 3: That phase in will take a couple of years. But but there's no question of whether or not the buildings that are required to phase in in 2018 actually do that. That just happens.
Speaker 7: That's a requirement, though. That's a requirement of both the building size and what the tune up is. The the open question because this was a folks talk about a couple of ways to approach this work. One is requiring that you take certain actions. One is the requirement that you achieve certain energy savings. This was the former requiring them to take actions. But the ultimate climate goal we need is to achieve the energy savings. And we we're hoping those match up, but we don't know for certain yet. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any further comments or questions? All those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. I think that will conclude our business. I did want to tell some of our guests on the council member, where is this proposed legislation on the Arch Highway peer? How are we going to describe it that we'll take that up in the next full council, sign a referral calendar would take that up at full council next week. Councilman, where is it? You want to address it? Just something.
Speaker 2: To say.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 2: Could I be excused on December 5th?
Speaker 1: No, you cannot. It's been. It's been moved and seconded, councilmember. Whereas be excused on December 5th. All those in favor of that motion say I. I opposed the ayes have it is any further business to for the council.
Speaker 4: I would just like to say I thought we were going to be addressing further the resolution today about.
Speaker 2: The slice.
Speaker 4: Of the off ramps on ramps that are going to be saved. And I just want to say for my colleagues that I had the pleasure of going out with Keenan BLOCK to go look at it, because when I.
Speaker 2: First heard of it.
Speaker 4: What I heard in my mind was we're going to keep one of those off ramps. And I just couldn't believe that anybody would be recommending that. So knowing Keenan and knowing that he has good ideas, I walked out. And what's impressive about it is that if you can imagine slicing off a piece of bread or a piece of meatloaf, that's what we're talking about. It is the end of one space. I was impressed because it's the vines have grown up on it. It looks like something that totally would fit in with what you're trying to do down at the arboretum. And so I just wanted all of you who came to know that I appreciate the hard work both 50 years ago and also today to retain something that's important. So in case you didn't all come back next week, I just wanted you to know how much.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your work.
Speaker 1: Thank you there, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: I move to be excused on November 28th, December 5th and December 12th.
Speaker 0: Just from second.
Speaker 1: November.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be in Spain.
Speaker 1: December 11th, 2012, five. And what.
Speaker 3: 11, 28, 12, five and 12, 12 or 12/2?
Speaker 1: It's been moved in second. And that comes from Gonzales be excused from 11, 11, 2812, five and 1212. All those in favor say I, I oppose. The ayes have it. Are they is there any further business, Councilmember O'Brien?
Speaker 7: Well, we're at it. I'll ask to be excused on 1128 also. Where are you? I don't know where we're going to go.
Speaker 1: I'll second that. All those in favor of Councilmember O'Brien being excused for 1128 say I. I oppose the ayes have it any further business? Confer the council.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, I would just point out that November 28 is our backup day to adopt the city budget. So if we don't do it on the day it's scheduled, you'll miss the opportunity. And who knows what we'll do?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: We're going to get it done.
Speaker 0: We're going to get done, which is why the Budget Committee is going to reconvene as soon as we're done.
Speaker 1: As soon as we're done. So we thank you for being here. We will reconvene and budget just in a few moments. Councilman Burgess wants us there in 3 minutes. 3 minutes will stand adjourn. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION reaffirming Seattle’s commitment to the Climate Action Plan and setting expectations for increasing commercial building energy efficiency through the year 2035. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118747 | Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.
Speaker 4: To report the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee agenda item one Capital 118 747 Establishing a new pilot parking in a business improvement area, levying special assessments upon owners of business, property, multifamily, residential property and mixed use property within the area, providing for the deposit of revenues in a special account and expenditures therefrom providing for collection of and penalties for delinquencies. Providing for the submission of a rate payers advisory board and providing for an implementation agreement with a program manager. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. This legislation, as we've heard, establishes the Ballard Parking and Improvement District, the BIA in Ballard. It's one of the economic development mechanisms that we use in city government to allow neighborhood business districts to establish a variety of programs to address issues that they've identified as important to them. In this particular case, the Ballard Business Improvement Area is designed to accomplish eight objectives a clean environment, which includes sweeping of sidewalks, graffiti removal and advancing plans for a Ballard public restroom facility, advocacy on urban design and transportation issues that affect the Ballard Business Area. Business development and retention for businesses that are serving that community or may serve them in the future. Marketing and Promotion Activities. Promoting Ballard as a destination to live, workshop, eat or play. Public safety and health enhancements in the neighborhood. Programs related to education and network opportunities for individuals and for businesses. Promotion and management of the Ballard Seafood Fest, which happens every year and has been going for 40 some years in Ballard. And then finally, the management of the BIA and its financial and administrative obligations. Some speakers this morning indicated that they never received notice of the council's consideration of this matter. Notice was sent on August 22nd by the City Clerk to approximately 125 potential ratepayers in the area. That's 16 days before the public hearing was held. The public hearing was held in council chambers on September seven at 930 in the morning. One person spoke against establishing the ballot BIA. The committee recommends that this ordinance be approved.
Speaker 1: Any further comments or concerns? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you for highlighting all that. Councilmember Burgess. I've had conversations with a number of community members going back over a year now about this work, as we know, with business improvement areas throughout the city. There is a requirement for a certain threshold to be met and a lot of conversations to be had. We did hear today from some folks that have expressed concerns about their building being included. What I've heard on the street, my conversations with the folks in the area is is broad support for this. Today, we heard some folks highlight that they would like to see the boundary drawn a little bit differently. And what I know and I can share with my colleagues here is that the legislation around base does allow future expansion of those areas there. My understanding is there are folks that are outside the area that would like to be included in the future. It'll just take some time. I've talked to the folks at the Ballard Chamber and they have also an interest in doing that as it allows moving forward. What I can tell you is that there is a lot of growth happening in Ballard. There's a lot of opportunity in that neighborhood and a lot of challenges that come with it. And I really applaud the people that have come together and are willing to commit their resources to add to what the city is doing to help improve the conditions in the community. And I fully support this legislation. I want to remind colleagues that the the legislation talks about the different scales about how folks are charged, but there's a cap for a residential unit can be charged no more than $90 a year, $7.50 a month. So residential participants is relatively modest. This would raise nearly, I believe, $400,000 a year for community wide improvements.
Speaker 1: Any further comments from any of my colleagues? I'll just say that I'll be supporting this legislation. But some of the objections that I heard this this afternoon do concern me that I continue to think that the city should not do a bare minimum job of notice, that the notice is intended to create a discussion and a dialog . Dare I say a negotiation. I trust that a lot of this was going on, but when I do hear I was barely complying with either the guidelines and I'm not sure that's what I heard. But I would like to be very proud of of solid outreach done by our departments. Even if we disagree with at least know that there was a forum by which the disagreements were vetted and they would move forward. So I'm very pleased to hear that there's still a process moving forward as we unfold. The Big I continue to think this is going to be very good for the neighborhoods and the businesses and the residents in this area. But again, I think lessons could always be learned when we establish these buys. No, the comments from any of my colleagues. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Thanks, John Burgess. Gonzalez. President Harrell. All right. Seven in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine opposed the bill passed in the Senate. Please read agenda item number two. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE establishing a new Ballard Parking and Business Improvement Area; levying special assessments upon owners of business property, multi-family residential property, and mixed-use property within the area; providing for the deposit of revenues in a special account and expenditures therefrom; providing for collection of and penalties for delinquencies; providing for the establishment of a Ratepayers Advisory Board; and providing for an implementation agreement with a Program Manager. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118748 | Speaker 4: Agenda item to cancel bill 1.8 748 relating to the Seattle Junction Parking Business Improvement Area. Modify the assessment rates amending ordinance 113 326 as previously amended by ordinances one one 9530 9120 57 zero and 121 758. In accordance therewith, the committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. The West Seattle Business Improvement Area was established in 1987 and this legislation in front of us today increases the assessment rate for all of the rate payers by 10%. Notice was also sent of this change and a public hearing was held at the Council on September seven. In this case, as well as the Balad BIA case, the advocates for this measure had to obtain signatures from at least 60% of the ratepayers. They did that. There was a notice published in the Daily Journal of Commerce in addition to the mailed notice.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further comments or questions that please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez. O'Brian. Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. I President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed in the chair was signing agenda item number three. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the West Seattle Junction Parking and Business Improvement Area; modifying the assessment rates; and amending Ordinance 113326, as previously amended by Ordinances 119539, 120570, and 121758, in accordance therewith. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118770 | Speaker 4: Agenda item three Council Bill 118770. Relating to historic preservation. Imposing controls upon the Mount Baker Park Presbyterian Church, a landmark designation by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.2 of the Settlement Civil Code and adding to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 ceremonies. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. The Mount Baker Park Presbyterian Church was built in 1925. It's located at 3201 Hunter Boulevard South in the city's Mount Baker neighborhood. It was designated as a historic landmark in March of 2004. And this ordinance finally imposes the controls that the Landmarks Preservation Board has recommended for this particular property. This means that any changes to the site, the building exterior and portions of the interior must be approved in advance by the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Burgess, are there any further comments or questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brian. Baker. Burgess. Gonzalez, i. President Harrell, i. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Agenda item number four.
Speaker 4: And I am for accountable 118804 relating to city employment. Creating a compensation program for the position of the Seattle Public Utilities General Manager, Chief Executive Officer specifying provisions for the administration of said compensation program and ratifying, confirming search and prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Mount Baker Park Presbyterian Church, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118804 | Speaker 4: And I am for accountable 118804 relating to city employment. Creating a compensation program for the position of the Seattle Public Utilities General Manager, Chief Executive Officer specifying provisions for the administration of said compensation program and ratifying, confirming search and prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Constable and Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This legislation creates a new pay band and a new title for the Seattle Public Utilities General Manager, Chief Executive Officer. As you know, SPU has just over 1300 employees and a budget on an annual basis of approximately $1 billion. As I mentioned, this legislation creates a new position known as the SPU general manager and chief executive officer. It makes this title and pay band generally the same as that of Seattle City Lights General Manager and Chief Executive Officer. The new pay band for this position is from $209000 to $335000. The City Council sets the pay band, but the city council does not set the specific salary. That is a decision for the mayor to make.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson Juarez I. O'BRIEN Hi, Bagshaw. Burgess Hi. Gonzalez President Harrell high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed in show sign it should not add a number five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; creating a compensation program for the position of Seattle Public Utilities General Manager/Chief Executive Officer; specifying provisions for the administration of said compensation program; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118812 | Speaker 1: Bill passed in show sign it should not add a number five.
Speaker 4: Agenda item five Constable 118812 Relay City Employment commonly referred to as a third quarter 2016 Employment Ordinance designated positions as exempt from civil service status, returning a position to civil service status and ratifying confirming certain prior acts all by two thirds vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I apologize for taking up all the airtime, but it's obvious that my committee got its work done this time around. This is the third quarter employment ordinance, which is a fairly routine piece of legislation that we entertain each quarter. It establishes four positions in city government is exempt from the civil service because these positions meet the exemption criteria set in the municipal code and it returns one position to the civil service that had been exempt previously but no longer meets the criteria.
Speaker 1: Thank you with any further comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. I beg Sharna Burgess.
Speaker 5: By.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez I President Harrell high seven in favor none opposed the.
Speaker 1: Bill passed into law was signed. Agenda item number six. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Third Quarter 2016 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; returning a position to Civil Service status; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118776 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Burgess, any comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. We'll hear the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee, but please read the short title of items 23 through 29.
Speaker 4: The Report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Items 23 to 29 Council 118776 relating to the sale of Fuel Gas Code Council 118777 Relating to the set of Plumbing Code Council 118778 relating to the existing building code council 118779 related to the sale energy code council 118 780 relate to Seattle Residential Code Council 1187. Eight one really into building code and cancel 118782 really into mechanical code. The committee recommends all these bills pass.
Speaker 1: Will move from the Burgess show to the Johnson Show. Council Member Johnson Thank you.
Speaker 6: Council President Yes, you're right. We were busy as well. Items 23 and 29 update our city's technical codes to conform to the national and state model code standards. We do this every couple of years and a few early adoptions of the National Code changes are expected in 2018 or Seattle. Specific changes that are included in these individual codes, which we'll be adopting individually. A couple of highlights of some examples of the kinds of actions that we're approving today removing requirements which conflict with our all gender restroom ordinance requiring rapid eradication prior to demolition, permit issuance to address public health concerns, requiring new dwellings to be solar ready by providing space for solar panel installation in the future. Clarification of smoke detector requirements in residential high rise building changes to the Energy Code to help us meet our climate action plan goals, etc. etc. Happy to speak to each of these individual codes of members would like me to.
Speaker 1: Are there any questions or comments on agenda items 23 to 29 hearing? Then we're going to vote on each one individually. Please call the roll on agenda item number 23 Council Bill 118776 Johnson.
Speaker 2: Suarez O'Brian. Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi. Seven In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: No pastoral assignment. Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 118777 and chin item number 24.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien by pager Burgess Gonzalez President Harrell seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill pass cheryl senate please call the roll call on an item number 25.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez President Harrell High seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Cho assign it please call the roll call an agenda item number 26.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien, Bagshaw, Burgess and Salas I President Harrell high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and show of Senate Please call the roll call on an item number 27.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien Major Burgess Gonzalez President Harrell high seven in favor nine opposed the.
Speaker 1: Bill passed in show assignment. Please call the roll call on agenda item number 28.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez I President Harrell I save seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and show sign it and please call the roll call on the agenda item number 29.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez I President Harrell high seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Parsons show was sign it all you read the next agenda item into the record. Did we cover number 30? Not yet. Yes. Please go to number 30. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fuel Gas Code; amending Section 22.420.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code and adopting by reference Chapters 2 through 8 of the 2015 International Fuel Gas Code, and amending those chapters; adopting a new Chapter 1 for the Seattle Fuel Gas Code related to administration, permitting, and enforcement; and repealing Sections 2-8 of Ordinance 124276. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118783 | Speaker 1: Bill Parsons show was sign it all you read the next agenda item into the record. Did we cover number 30? Not yet. Yes. Please go to number 30.
Speaker 4: Agenda item 30 Council 118 783 relating to land use and zoning at a new chapter 23.58 of the citizens of a code and many sections 23.40 point zero 6020 3.40 1.00. 4.0 12 23.40 2.0. 5620 3.40 5.5 10.5 1620 3.40 8.0. 21.22 1.2 3020 3.40 9.3 11.0 32.1 80. 23.50 point zero 3320 3.60 6.1 40. 23.84 8.0 1420 3.80 8.0 ten and 23.90 point zero 18. And repealing SNC Section 23.40 5.5 26 and 23.40 9.0 22. Revised Living Building Pilot Program and reorganize, consolidate and Update Standards. When meeting the green building standard is a condition of permit, the committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 1: Finally, Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 6: Thank you to our very capable city clerk. Council Bill 173 updates the Living Building Pilot Program and the Green Building Standards for Incentive Zoning, as I mentioned during council briefing this morning. We have two such buildings in the city. One is the Bullet Foundation Building, the bullet center on Madison in Capital Hill, and the other is the Stone 34 building just at the intersection of Stone Way and the Perkiomen Trail. This update to the pilot program, as you heard during public comment, responds to recommendations from a technical advisory group brought together by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections in response to a council resolution that we took up several years ago. The changes that were intending to pass today maintain the highest and. The program was also continuing to encourage participation. And let me give you a couple of highlights. Takes away some of the uncertainty of the program by allowing the incentives for participating projects by right as opposed to a variance, it allows the projects to participate by fulfilling the Living Building Challenge. Pedal Certification Program modifies the penalty for non achievement of certification and extends the enrollment period till 2025 or until 20 projects have participated. We had a near unanimous public comment on this throughout the several meetings that we discussed. These changes, as you heard from folks from the architecture community and from the Seattle 2030 district, a lot of support for this in the midst of what is really a building boom here in the city of Seattle. Disappointing to see that no current buildings are taking advantage of our Living Building pilot program. So my hope is that with adoption today, we'll start to see more folks adopt into the program in the very near future.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine Johnson. Any comments or concerns or questions? Thank you very much. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson Maurice O'Brien beg John Burgess. Gonzalez, President. Harold I. Seven in favor.
Speaker 1: Nine Oppose the bill pass and chair will sign it for the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Fisheries Department. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; adding a new Chapter 23.58D to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); amending SMC Sections 23.40.060, 23.41.004, 23.41.012, 23.42.056, 23.45.510, 23.45.516, 23.48.021, 23.48.221, 23.48.230, 23.49.011, 23.49.023, 23.49.180, 23.50.033, 23.66.140, 23.84A.014, 23.88.010, and 23.90.018; and repealing SMC Sections 23.45.526 and 23.49.020; to revise the Living Building Pilot Program and reorganize, consolidate, and update standards when meeting the green building standard is a condition of a permit. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118771 | Speaker 1: Nine Oppose the bill pass and chair will sign it for the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Fisheries Department.
Speaker 4: 34 Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda 31 Council 118771 Relating to preparations for the Arts for the Office of Arts and Culture amending Ordinance 124 927, which is up to 2016 budget and lifting a budget proviso imposed upon the Office of Arts and Culture Capital Arts Budget Control level by Seattle City Council Green Sheet 47. Dash one, dash b-1. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 5: Councilmember O'Brien So this bill's follow up on budget work from last year. In 2016, the council approved a budget that included $1.5 million for three nonprofit cultural institutions $500,000 each for the Nordic Heritage Museum, the Burke Museum and Town Hall. At the time, we also adopted a proviso for that funding and waited for the Executive to provide the Council with contracts detailing the public benefits that would be delivered in exchange for the city funding. This bill provides three contracts for public benefits and would release the funds allowing the Arts and Culture, the Office of Arts and Culture to enter into separate contracts of $500,000 each with each of those three organizations.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any further comments and thank you for pinch hitting comes from Brian.
Speaker 5: You betcha.
Speaker 1: Please call the roll on the part of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson. O'Brien. Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. I President Harrell I seven in favor and.
Speaker 1: Opposed the bill passed and chose signage. Maybe you could read the shorter version of it. You're not a number 32. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Office of Arts & Culture; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget; and lifting a proviso imposed on the Office of Arts & Culture’s Capital Arts Budget Control Level by Seattle City Council Green Sheet 47-1-B-1. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118805 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item three three Council Bill 118805 Wellington City Council The Waste System Removing the sunset date for a five cent pass recharge for certain recyclable paper bags required certain compostable bags to be labeled and tinted green. Add a definition for compostable and amending. 21.30 6.110 Seattle Means Barcode. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Customer.
Speaker 5: O'Brien Thank you. So this legislation will update a bill that was passed five years ago in 2011, and that was the time in which the city council passed legislation to ban plastic single use plastic bags within the city and require that for folks switching to a paper bag that there would be a five cent fee charged the $0.05 to be retained by the business that was giving out the the bag. That five cent fee requirement was to expire at the end of this year. This legislation would extend that indefinitely. This legislation also addresses one of the challenges we see around compostable bags. We like composting in the city. In fact, we require composting. But there's a lot of confusion in what types of plastic bags are compostable. I think a lot of folks are familiar with compostable branded plastic bags that we encourage people to use for managing their food waste. Those bags are often tinted green as a way to indicate that they are compostable. However, lots of other bags are also tinted green, and this is creating a lot of confusion among consumers. The confusion results in non compostable bags, regular plastic bags being put into the compost system. They're very difficult to remove. Often they can't be removed, little pieces of them contaminate the compost. It degrades the quality of the compost and sometimes means it's no longer compost and has to be rejected as waste. This legislation would require that bags that are not compostable not use the green coloring and also has a definition for what compostable is. It's consistent with the providers that provide composting in the region so that those bags will actually work in the system as intended.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any comments? You know, Curtis, if it's leaking when you're carrying it, it's compostable. That's sort of the test.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 1: All those in favor of, oh, it is a bill. Please call the role on the part of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brien Bagshaw Burgess Gonzalez, President Harrell.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and the chair was Simon. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City of Seattle’s solid waste system; removing the sunset date for a five cent pass-through charge for certain recyclable paper bags; requiring certain compostable bags to be labeled and tinted green; adding a definition for compostable; and amending Section 21.36.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_CB 118806 | Speaker 4: Agenda Item 34 Council 118806 Failing to sell public utilities declaring certain real property rights related to a sewer facility. Easement within property bounded by 25th Avenue, Northeast Northeast 49th Street, 30th Avenue, Northeast and Northeast 45th Street in Seattle as being surplus city's utility needs authorizing director of sale public utilities to relinquish such easement rights and to accept a new easement from University Village Limited Partnership for city owned sanitary sewer facility and ratifying confirming certain prior acts the committee recommends. The bill pass.
Speaker 1: Comes from O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Great. This is a fairly straightforward shift in easement. So the property in question here is under is at University Village. There are certain easements that the city has held where sewer lines for sewer lines in the past. Those easements are no longer needed. There's new easements that are needed, I believe, for realignment of sewer lines. And so this bill does both those. It relinquishes the easements that are no longer necessary and accepts easements where the new facilities are.
Speaker 1: Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez O'Brian by Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. President Harrell. Seven In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed in Charles Senate Agenda Item number 35. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights relating to sewer facility easements within property bound by 25th Avenue NE, NE 49th Street, 30th Avenue NE, and NE 45th Street in Seattle as being surplus to the City’s utility needs; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to relinquish such easement rights and to accept a new easement from University Village Limited Partnership for a City-owned sanitary sewer facility; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10032016_Res 31712 | Speaker 4: And item 35 Resolution 31712 Endorsing Community Principles for Green Jobs, requesting that the interdepartmental team on workforce entry and Employment Pathways incorporate strategies to advance green careers for people of color and other marginalized or under represented groups supporting sustainable entrepreneurship and economic cooperative models. Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Council Member O'Brien Thank you.
Speaker 5: I'm going to start by thanking the folks who stuck around through Agenda 35 and have been working on this for over a year. It's great to be here today. I am saddened that Councilmember Herbold is not here because she did a lot of work on bringing this legislation and deserves a lot of the credit, too. But I will do my best to speak on her behalf, in my behalf. I want to highlight well, first, let me just say that that is critically important, that we make sure that careers are available in the environmental field or in green careers for everyone in our community. And we currently have a system that doesn't allow that to happen. A couple of data points I want to read that came to me in the process of this legislation. There's a study out of University of Michigan that talked about something called the Green Ceiling, and it's a ceiling that keeps certain people from entering the environmental field or when they do enter green jobs, they're not they're not able to progress. One data point shows that people of color hold no more than 16% of positions in environmental organizations, agencies and foundations, and that once hired in environmental organizations, ethnic minorities are concentrated in the lower ranks, with less than 12% of the leadership positions held by people of color. What this does is it paints a picture of an ecosystem, if you will, a job system where we have very disproportional outcomes and we have white people able to access jobs and achieve higher ranks at a much higher rate than people of color can. And people in our community have done a lot of work around this and highlighted this is a priority and brought to our attention some of the challenges we have we heard about in comment today and in committee. Oftentimes to get jobs in these careers, you need to have experience. And how do you get experience when you don't have a job? What happens oftentimes is people who are able, financially capable of taking a free job, an unpaid internship, can work for free to build up their resume so they have access. But of course, there's a lot of people that don't have the financial support to take unpaid internships. They need to support themselves. And so what this resolution does is it calls upon the city to do a number of things to address these concerns. And hopefully, with the result being that we can make sure that everyone in our community has access to these green careers. The first thing it does, it asks the city to create a green job definition consistent with community principles outlined in the resolution. And I think it's powerful. So I want to read it here. A green job is one that preserves or enhances environmental health, as well as the economic and social well-being of people in communities, centers, communities most negatively impacted by climate change, and pays a living wage while providing career pathways. The resolution also calls upon an inter-departmental team to create an inventory of internships, apprenticeships and entry level jobs offered by the city of Seattle that meet the definition described above. Also, ask the city for examples of opportunities to create more local green jobs from our existing environmental investments. We make investments throughout the city, and those jobs and those investments should leverage the exact types of jobs we're hoping to create with pathways. Finally, this resolution expresses support for supporting sustainable entrepreneurship and encourages economic cooperative models of creating jobs not just at the city of Seattle, but partners in businesses throughout the city and throughout the region . This was one of the highlights in the equity environment agenda that community members presented to us last fall and last spring, I should say, in the Council, and adopted the principles of those that agenda in August. This is a great step forward. It reflects a lot of really hard work on behalf of community members who who really want access to these green jobs. And we will all benefit when we create that access. There's still a lot of work to do, but it's a great step forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Brian May for the comments. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 6: I just want to highlight one of the things that we spent a lot of time talking about last year on the campaign trail, and that's the and equity in terms of life expectancy in this city. It was really powerful to see that called out in the resolution today where a neighborhood that I represent, Lowell Hurst, an individual that grows up in that neighborhood, has a life expectancy of 30. Teen years, 13 years longer than someone who lives in South Park or Georgetown. I think that that is a credible statistic and reinforces, I think, the need for us to make sure that we're very equitably distributing resources throughout the city in terms of infrastructure and in terms of the continued support for the work that we are doing as a community to create more green jobs, green stormwater infrastructure and more investments to make it easier for folks to get around and live in our city.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. I'd like to just say that, number one, the word pathways is very powerful, because when you think about a pathway, they just don't occur generically. There's usually an absence of a pathway in order for a pathway to. To get constructive takes. It's a fight takes it takes work, takes energy. And so this work that both the community has done really come and go with coming up with some really smart policy solutions in an area where there is action and whether that action is environmental sustainability or not relying on fossil fuels or even STEM education , wherever there's opportunity, you are fighting for a pathway which becomes very, very powerful. So it's absolutely my honor to support this legislation and thanks for presenting it. Councilmember O'Brien. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted and the chair will gladly signage. Okay. We got through all 35 agenda items. Is there any further business to come before the council? I'm looking my colleague on my left.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. I would like to be excused on December 5th.
Speaker 1: And we're going to second that. Okay. This moves in second to the councilmember backstab excuse from December 5th. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Any further business from any other my colleagues? Well, that will stand adjourned. Everyone, have a great day. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION endorsing community principles for green jobs, requesting that the Interdepartmental Team on Workforce Entry and Employment Pathways incorporate strategies to advance green careers for people of color and other marginalized or under-represented groups, supporting sustainable entrepreneurship and economic cooperative models. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_Res 31705 | Speaker 7: The Report The Human Services and Public Health Committee Agenda Item seven Resolution 31705 related to addressing the needs of people living in the I-5 East to Amish Greenbelt and in the adjoining neighborhoods. Accepting the Seattle Human Services Department's East, two Amish Greenbelt encampments, outreach assessments, and approving the city's operations plan to physically improve and maintain the greenbelt and provide a healthier and safer environment for all. The committee recommends the resolution resolution be adopted with a divided report with Councilmembers Backshall Harrell, Burgess and Gonzalez in favor and councilmembers. O'Brien and so want opposed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I've got a number of things I want to I would like to say quite a bit about this, but we want to do an amendment first.
Speaker 0: Sure, we do have an amendment, I believe. And who would like to describe that amendment? All right. That's nice. Councilmember Gonzalez. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have a small amendment. It's to section three. Section three. My amendment would require two things. One, it would require that the city pursue, in the spirit of ongoing coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation, that it would pursue formalizing that agreement by identifying both short and long term maintenance, activation, infrastructure opportunities that promote public safety. And so this is essentially would require the city to pursue to pursue some type of memorandum of understanding or other type of agreement that would essentially memorialize the need to go back and do regular assessments of the I-5, East L.A. greenbelt. And really, the intent here is to make sure that that we're keeping ourselves honest and that we're keeping our our partnering jurisdictions honest around the needs to make sure that we're keeping keeping the area safe and clean for those who continue to stay in that area and for also the infrastructure safety needs of the area as well . So that's the first part of it. The second part is addressing my concern around neighborhood impacts for both the sheltered and unsheltered people who live in surrounding neighborhoods and what that means when how we exacerbate or or minimize their public health and safety, when we are displacing people from an area as large as the I-5 East L.A. greenbelt. So this would require the executive to lay out in the agreement how each of the parties to the agreement will handle significant displacement concerns that impacts surrounding neighborhoods as it relates to public health and public safety.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. So Councilmember Huizar, Gonzalez has moved to amend the resolution 31705 by substituting a new Section three. Is there a second?
Speaker 9: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of the amendment? Both I. I opposed. The ayes have it. We have an amended a resolution. Councilmember back. So you have the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, I certainly do. Thank you and thank you. I would like very much for you to listen to me for 7 minutes and then I will step out when this meeting is over and listen to you. Susan, I want to say thank you for what you wrote to me. And I want to take us back a few months on May 31st. This council, after a number of conversations and some struggled with some language, adopted a resolution that described outreach protocols for persons that were living under I-5 in what we call the East Wyoming greenbelt. At that time, we agreed that people living in the greenbelt should be given real offers of outreach and real offers of housing, not just be scooted from one place to the next. The results of our outreach were documented and they were reported to the Council. And I want to say thank you to Brian and to others that worked with the Union Gospel Mission. I went out there with you. I saw what you were doing. I met the people that you were working with. And I really respect the way that you treated people. And not only with respect, but truly with helping them. Move up and move on. The mayor earlier today talked about income and racial inequality. That's well-documented. We don't do we do not debate that. And what we're talking about today is a resolution that will promote a project to help clean up the hazardous areas underneath I-5. I want to talk just a moment about that and then I'm going to talk to you about what we're doing next. So the assessment of the Union Gospel Mission Outreach Area have been distributed to all of us. And the final outreach report from you. And we got another update again today. And the operations plan for addressing the numerous public health and safety hazards really included moving people now so that that hazardous area, as defined by ACLU and many others, could get cleaned up. None of us on the council believe that this is the end. It does not solve the problems that residents have. It does not solve the people's needs underneath the greenbelt right now. But what we do know is that the conditions under there need to be cleaned up. And I agree with you. What we need is more housing. So let me go back without being interrupted, please, and talk about the variety of options that are coming forward. What we are voting on today is a resolution. The resolution helps move forward the mayor's plan that they have negotiated with Washington. But that is just a beginning. We have already started and are continuing no negotiations with many of the people who have our advocates, who are supporters, who recommend that we take care of people and that we stop the sweeps. And I am one of those people that believe and are working hard that we must stop the sweeps. And we're starting a variety of options. We're going to have permanent housing. We've got about a thousand more units that are already planned, including 1300 spaces negotiating this coming year with landlords, 500 more spaces with families. I'm talking with the county and with other cities about how having having modular is put on private property so that those places can be people can move in and have safe housing, they can have warm housing, they can have their own places. So we will have a number of permanent housing options that will be increased this year. We're going to be increasing 24 seven shelters. We will have more authorized encampments. We're going to have more money for addiction and have a system wide plan with help for accessing mental health as well and detox centers. Housing and the services that people need must be tied together. And like we talked about last week, my belief is that these have to be expanded. The options have to be expanded this year, and it has to be moved nimbly and fast. Chasing around people from one side to the other does nothing for any of us. It doesn't do anything for the people who are being moved. It doesn't do anything for the neighbors. So I urge us to pass this resolution today and address with the hazardous areas underneath I-5. And as I say, we will have in my committee on Wednesday another conversation. And really building on the principles we will hear from the Encampment Task Force. And I want to say thank you again to all the people that worked on that with us to really help those who need it. And we will move our community forward. But today, we're voting on a resolution, and I urge us all to pass this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Bagshaw. Do any of my colleagues have any further comments on this resolution? Council members want to see where it comes from.
Speaker 4: What if you couldn't give them the garbage you were reporting as you could have given them containers for sharpies and they could have kept the mess down.
Speaker 0: Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 2: That's right. Yeah. Break is all going to.
Speaker 0: Be reasons why. So I'm going to ask that you refrain. Right now we have a public comment. Please refrain. Thank you. Customers want the other floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Tell the families that.
Speaker 0: Don't you let everybody do that. I'm going to ask you one more time and then I'm going to call you disruptive and have you removed. I'm going to ask you one more time and I say you're disruptive. Please have this person removed. I'd like to have it removed.
Speaker 2: I don't. I Harrell. I don't think they should be moved. I think they're there to disrupt the status quo. And that's why.
Speaker 0: We find this disruptive. And that asked should be removed. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: And anyone else speaking during this non public comment section, I'm going to have you removed.
Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah. Do I just want to crush this? We've got to wait for our real time. Yes. Let me get pretty language on this. So here we were. We've got a.
Speaker 1: Now this is what we do.
Speaker 0: Customer response. You have the floor right here.
Speaker 4: How far back? Give it up for our customer and.
Speaker 2: Thank you, prisoner. I believe it is disingenuous to tell people that they have to find permanent housing and that permanent housing is the solution if there is nowhere they can afford to go. Yes, everybody agrees we want permanent housing. Nobody is, you know, stupid. But the problem with resolutions like this is that. As members of the public said, it has dressed up as something different, but it is ultimately about sweeps and the experience of sweeps everywhere. But especially in these Duwamish, greenbelt has been that it will continue to be a failed policy whenever the greenbelt has been and is trapped. The reality is hundreds of people are left with nowhere to go. Sometimes they lose their tents and possessions, sometimes not, and then they set up camp somewhere else. In this case, in the ad. Then the city repeats the process all over again. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent and all that is achieved is misery. It is inhumane and ineffective. We should sweep trash, not people right here. I vote no to get housing in this city. Premiere. Yes. Street. And actually, I would like to I would like to echo Susan's comments that Susan Russell's comment, you know, there's a lot of common sense solutions that the city council could help sponsor in order to keep the green belt green. Like all the ideas you said, porta potties, you know, safe needle disposal and so on. I don't think we are short on ideas. What we are short on is a political will to stop simply talking about homelessness, but actually implementing solutions that we know will work. I vote no on this resolution. But for all the council members, including Councilmember Bagshaw, who say that they are passionate about transitioning people to permanent housing, I look forward to your support. For the permanent housing solutions in my budget amendment for a thousand homes using the money that was set aside for the police precinct.
Speaker 4: I also want.
Speaker 2: To add it is quite stunning how the majority of the council went along with the violation of the basic rights of members of the Seattle public. People have been waiting here for 3 hours, some of them for hours, and they have these green cards that give them numbers. And they were prevented from entering chambers during the mayor's speech when he announced his priorities for how to use taxpayer dollars. These are taxpayers city council, and they were prevented from entering chambers to listen to the mayor's speech inside chambers. And I think that this this type of egregious violation of the public, the right of the public should not be tolerated. And I urge members of the public, let's continue building a very strong movement so that not only can we defeat these kinds of attacks on our rights, but also win tangible gains like the money for a thousand affordable homes.
Speaker 0: Are there any we have rather resolution 31705 that's been amended. We are discussing, I mean, for the Commons. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I am going to vote against this resolution. I want to highlight the reasons why if you look at the assessment in the summary section under section one, it talks about the the number of folks that were personally engaged by the Union Gospel Mission Outreach Team of 357 folks. And then we looked through the housing, shelter and services provided. There were 28 people. Of those 357 who were either moved into a recovery program, including housing, transitional housing or assistance with alternative shelter arrangements. For those 28 folks. That's great. And I want to commend Union Gospel Mission for working with working with anyone who's outside and helping them find resources. And that is exactly the type of work we need to do. My concern is the gap between the 357 people that we're outreach to and the 28 folks that received housing. That's a huge number of folks that didn't get housing. 45 of those people were assisted in relocating to other authorized or unauthorized encampments, which is consistent with what we what I hope to become city policy when when we find an area that's unsuitable to live in. But there are hundreds of people that are not accounted for. And almost certainly the majority of those folks simply moved to other places. That may be acceptable or maybe not. And I don't believe that that is the best policy that we should be doing. I think it's a waste of the city's resources to be moving people around until we have a permanent housing or at least acceptable places for them to be. Specifically, I also want to talk about what's going to happen next. If we adopt this, the operational plan in section two of it, it talks about site work in a phase one where they're going to do final notification based on the encampment outreach assessment. At that time, it sounds like there are 118 people remaining based on the conversation in committee last week. It sounds like that number is down closer to 50 right now. I believe I heard that some of those folks still may get into housing, but based on the past pattern, I suspect a number of those folks remaining highlighted in phase two when they go to cleanup and debris removal will have to leave at that point and will simply not be given another place to go. And so we need to continue to work on better solutions for folks living outside. There's a lot of good work going on right now, and hopefully in the next few days, a few weeks, we'll have a commitment to it. I believe that a lot of good work was done in eastern Miami's greenbelt, but I also think we fall short of what we should be doing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brian. Councilmember Herbal.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I, too, have some concerns about the level of assessment and outreach that has been done to the population of folks living in this area to date. I'm concerned that in voting in favor of this resolution, it sends the message to the executive that this is a sufficient amount of access to alternative places to stay. It seems clear to me that what was offered to the population of people in the East trash greenbelt, the shelter beds was was not sufficient to meet the needs of the people living there at the time. There's a good reason for why people don't accept services that are offered to them. And I don't have enough information to to know about. Whether or not there were resources available to meet the needs of of folks living there. And and again, I think the work that so many of us have been focused on about creating future policies for how the city manages its own public land. I again, I think it's so important that we that we get it right, that we don't want to start off by endorsing a through this resolution, a set of expectations that don't, in fact, meet our policy goals. So I will be voting against this resolution as.
Speaker 0: Well and of course, memorable. Any further comments from any of my colleagues, if not council members?
Speaker 9: Thank you. I think it's fair to say that we live in a very complicated world and sometimes we face challenges that are very difficult. And this is one of those situations I think we can all agree that the city has tried to the best of its ability to balance our obligation for public health and safety, with our desire to provide a compassionate response to individuals who are living outdoors. And I think the city staff and union gospel mission have done an admirable job in this area. However, the East Room is greenbelt. So-called jungle is an inherently dangerous location. I think we all remember just 227 days ago, on January 26, when five people were shot, three seriously wounded, two killed. And on September 9th of this year, just 17 days ago, at least three individuals in the jungle exchanged gunfire involving four weapons, three automatic pistols and a rifle. Thankfully they were bad shots and no one was injured. But we could very easily be sitting here since January nine, excuse me, since September nine, trying to explain why the city did not act to clean up this inherently and extremely dangerous location. We cannot afford to look away from the city's public safety and public health obligations. We cannot ignore those facts. And so while the circumstances are difficult and while some individuals have said yes to housing and others have said no, the city has an obligation to act to protect residents of our city. And I'll be supporting this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Caspian Burgess, any further comments from my colleagues and I'll I'll pass on this and will vote raise our hands with respect to our vote voice as well. So those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote I and raise your hand. I ask those opposed. Please vote no and raise your hand. Oh, no. The motion carries the resolutions. Adopt and chair will sign it. Please read the next report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION related to addressing the needs of people living in the I-5 East Duwamish Greenbelt and in the adjoining neighborhoods; accepting the Seattle Human Services Department’s East Duwamish Greenbelt Encampments Outreach Assessment; and approving the City’s operations plan to physically improve and maintain the Greenbelt and provide a healthier and safer environment for all. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118785 | Speaker 0: I ask those opposed. Please vote no and raise your hand. Oh, no. The motion carries the resolutions. Adopt and chair will sign it. Please read the next report of the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Planning and Zoning Committee genda item eight Council 118785 relating to land use and zoning. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Castro Johnson.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President This relates to council action that we took last week. It's the amendment to an executed property use and development agreement. So I would like to move to amend Council Bill one one, eight, seven and five Exhibit B by substituting the executed property use and development agreement for the non executed version.
Speaker 0: Is has been moved in second to amend council bill 118785 by substituting executed public development and use agreement. All those in favor of the amendment. I'm sorry. I know I was going to finish. I was going to give her the floor. Oh, in fact, we're getting ready to vote, so why don't we say that before we vote on the amendment? Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Hill. On the recommendation of central staff, I need to recuse myself from voting on Council Bill 118785. I've received ex-parte communications from opponents of the project that may violate the appearance of Fairness Doctrine for members of the public who may not be familiar with these laws. There are some council votes, usually on land use questions that are called quasi judicial. On those items, council members cannot legally vote. If we hear directly from community members about it in certain ways. But I look forward to working on issues of density and displacement in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawant. We had before Councilmember Swan's recusal and an amendment to Council Bill 118785. All those in favor of the amendment vote i. I opposed the 97. The legislation is a minute. Councilmember Johnson, did you want to speak further?
Speaker 10: I have no further comments. I move an adoption of the underlying council bill.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded, I believe. I thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 1: Herbal.
Speaker 0: Oh, I was waiting, I thought. Let's go. Go ahead. Yes, we are ready.
Speaker 1: Herbold, I. Johnson whereas. O'Brien, I. Begala Burgess, I. Gonzalez President.
Speaker 0: Harrell, I. The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 1: Actually, I'm supposed to say. Council member Sawant is in attendance but disqualified from voting. The vote count is 8 to 0.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed in show assignment. Next agenda item place. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 112 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone property located at 2220 East Union Street from Neighborhood Commercial 2-40 (NC2-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2-65 (NC2-65) and from Neighborhood Commercial 2-40 with a pedestrian designation (NC2P-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2-65 with a pedestrian designation (NC2P-65); and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by East Union 22, LLC, C.F. 314312, SDCI Project 3019001) | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_Res 31711 | Speaker 7: Resolution 317 11 relating to the Equitable Development Implementation Plan and Equitable Development Financial Investment Strategy, voicing support for certain community initiative projects contained in the plan. Identify next steps for implementation of those projects. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted from Johnson.
Speaker 10: This is the resolution that was referred to several times during public comment today. And as most of you know, council last year passed a statement of legislative intent, asking the executive to prepare an equitable development of petition strategy, to demonstrate concrete, concrete steps the city could take to not just prepare for growth, but to use growth to become a more equitable city. As part of that work, the Office of Planning and Community Development convened a number of community groups and stakeholders. Together, they identified many strategies as well as specific community identified and led projects, which they felt would advance equity by empowering community and providing them with the resources that would help them thrive in the city of Seattle. These projects are more than just brick and mortar projects. These are the kinds of projects that will result in sort of the community fabric and retention of many communities that are feeling the gentrification and displacement so acutely in our city right now, including many projects like the Rayner Beach Innovation District, the Multicultural Community Center, the Southeast Economic Opportunity Center, the William Grove Center for Cultural Innovation, the Little Saigon Landmark Project, and many of others. The resolution expresses Council's ongoing support for these projects and our intent of our commitment to equity and social justice in the city by supporting these projects and the communities they will empower. I may add the late breaking his budget speech today. The mayor referenced this as a priority for him and outlined the potential of a new line item within the Office of Planning and Community Development Budget. Look forward to actually reading those details later on in the day and hopeful that my colleagues and I can continue to find permanent funding for this critically important implementation plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Johnson, you said parents everything I wanted to say, including that I was excited to hear the mayor call that out in his budget. And I look forward to seeing those numbers. I think this is a great step forward. Obviously, there's a lot of work to continue to be done on the whole, a whole host of strategies to reduce the displacement that's happening. This is an excellent strategy and I look forward to engaging with this further as we get into the budget.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, councilman bryan. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted. The chair will sign it. A report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. You can read the shorter version if you like. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Equitable Development Implementation Plan and Equitable Development Financial Investment Strategy; voicing support for certain community-initiated projects contained in the Plan and identifying next steps for implementation of those projects. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118774 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item and please read the short title.
Speaker 7: Agenda Item 12 Constable 118774 relayed to Seattle Public Utilities. The committee recommends Civil Pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Verbal.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This ordinance authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Port of Seattle in order to establish operational coordination and expectations regarding stormwater or drainage utility operations. In January of 2015, the port established a storm water utility in order to serve port owned land within city limits. Prior to that, the port was spruce, second largest storm water customer, representing about 4 million or 4.2% of total storm water utility revenue. Rates for 2015 were already set, assuming the port would continue to be an SPU customer during discussions with the city about the timing of the port's departure as a customer, the city and the port agreed on a settlement payment of about $3.9 million paid by the port to the city, reflecting anticipated port drainage fee revenue for 2015. The port's 100,000 annual credit from SPU for in-kind services is documented in the 1997 city port. L.A. is terminated as part of this new Ilay Interlocal agreement, and drainage rates for 2016 2018 were set excluding the port from future revenue projections.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Concerned for all. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold. Hi. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Hi. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. President Harrell. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed in was sign that agenda. Item number 13. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Seattle to serve as an operating agreement between Seattle Public Utilities and the Port of Seattle Drainage Utility including code modifications to exclude all Port-owned properties from the requirement to pay City stormwater and drainage fees; terminating the 1997 stormwater credit from the City to the Port; accepting a settlement payment from the Port of Seattle; containing details related to ownership and maintenance of infrastructure, authorities and responsibilities, system interconnections, access, coordination and dispute resolution; amending Section 21.33.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118775 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed in was sign that agenda. Item number 13.
Speaker 7: Agenda item 13. Constable 118775 relating to the Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This ordinance authorizes Seattle Public Utilities to accept a loan from the Washington State Public Works Board for the Morse Lake Pump Plant Project in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed near North Bend. The Public Works Board administers the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, providing low interest loans to projects to finance two projects in order to finance to provide financing that increases public health protection. Seattle Public Utilities has applied for revolving loan fund loans on previous occasions, including 12.1 million in 2015. Early in 2016, Seattle Public Utilities applied for and was granted additional loan funding in the amount of 6 million for the Morse Lake Pump Project. The loan rate is 1.5%, and the loan term is 20 years, saving the utility of about 1.1 million in present value borrowing costs.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can see her comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold II Johnson Juarez. I O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and Sherwood Senate. Please read the report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the Director of Seattle Public Utilities to accept a loan from the Washington State Public Works Board and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118772 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 118772 related to the Seattle Fire Code adopting the Seattle Fire Code of the 2015 edition. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Dan Simon GONZALES Thank you.
Speaker 6: And I. This is a carryover from last week. As I mentioned, last Monday, there is a slight technical amendment to the ordinance that needs to happen before we vote on it. So I am going to move to amend Council Bill 118772 sections one and 2.1 by filling in two blanks with clerk file number 319993 and Section 2.2 by filling in one blank with council number 118772.
Speaker 10: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved has been moved in second to amend council bill 118772. All those in favor of the Amendment four I. I opposed. The ayes have it. We have an amended piece of legislation.
Speaker 6: OC Council Bill 118772. This legislation contains updates to the Seattle Fire Code. The fire code is updated every three years to be consistent with the International Fire Code, Washington State Fire Code and other construction codes adopted in Seattle to name a few of the significant fire code changes. They include amendments to the two provisions around prohibitions around the use of sky lanterns. Open flames and used by fire performers, repair garage sprinklers, signage for commercial cooking appliances, fire department connection signs and tire storage. I would move for the adoption of Council Bill 118772 as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Recalled Johnson. Whereas. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzalez. President Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and Cheryl signed it. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 15 Council Bill 118 786 Granting Swedish Health Services permission to construct maintain operated pedestrian skybridge over and across a minor avenue. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Fire Code, adopting as the Seattle Fire Code the 2015 edition of the International Fire Code with some exceptions, amending and adding various provisions to that code; amending Section 22.600.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and repealing Sections 2 through 44 of Ordinance 124288. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118815 | Speaker 0: The bill passed in with Senate next session item please.
Speaker 7: Agenda item 17 Constable 118815 relate to arterial and non integral speed limits. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 9: Councilmember O'Brien I want to start by thanking advocates in the community who've been working on a range of issues around Vision Zero, the city's commitment to reduce, to eliminate all serious injuries and fatalities related to traffic. What this legislation would do would change that the arterial speed limits that are not posted from 30 to 25. So the default speed limit would be that on arterials that are posted in a neighborhood not arterial streets, neighborhood streets. It would lower the non posted speed limits from 25 to 20. This is a step in the right direction to making our streets safer for everyone. It's only a step. There's a lot of work that needs to be done going forward around both education, enforcement and in particular engineering. I also want to highlight that that a lot of the arterials in the city of Seattle are actually posted. Almost all the ones, I believe, outside of the downtown core, meaning those speed limits will not be reduced because of this legislation. But our state has agreed to come back to us in the future months to help us understand how we can go back as quickly as possible, where appropriate, and lower the speed limits on the arterials outside the downtown area. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for his co-sponsorship and ongoing work on this, too, and commitment to Vision Zero.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brian. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thanks to you, Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Burgess, for working on this. It's something that's been very near and dear to my heart for a number of years. I posted a blog this Saturday just saying thanks to Representatives. City Review from Shoreline. She's tried three different times to finally get this through our state legislature giving. City's the authority to be able to do just what we're doing here today. And I also cited on my blog a street film that was produced six years ago from the United Kingdom, where neighborhoods decided that they wanted to slow down the traffic on the streets. And it was remarkable because people were talking about how much more they enjoyed their neighbor, their neighbors and their neighborhoods when they could.
Speaker 1: Walk.
Speaker 2: Or ride their bikes or get around safely. And it's not because we don't love cars. We all drive them at some time or another. But this makes it a place where people want to be. So I want to say, thanks to neighborhood greenways, you've been terrific about leading this. I know Cascade Bicycle Club's been working, but also the pedestrian groups to Feet First and others saying, you know, this is the way we really.
Speaker 1: Want our city to be. So many thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues for bringing this important piece of legislation forward of a received a surprising amount of constituent response in support of this and a minority in our position. And to those that are opposing, I have one simple thing to say to you. Speed kills. And we need this legislation to ensure that fewer people on our roadways every year perish as a result of collisions. I want to thank central staff and I start. Thank you both. I appreciate that. I want to thank Central Central staff and staff for working with me on that amendment that Councilmember O'Brien referred to about rapidly getting an implementation plan together so that we can expand this to more than just the city streets downtown. And I'll be proud to vote in favor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 6: I'm going to be supporting this legislation. I do want to flag an issue, though. There's a narrative out there that the problem isn't the speed limit. The problem is the enforcement of the speed limit. And, you know, I just I had a question when I heard about this legislation, and I wanted to get a sense of how often tickets are given in in the neighborhoods that are currently opposed to 25. And the response I received from Usb-Pd was that they couldn't provide that information. They wrote our tickets do not routinely capture whether the road was an arterial or not, nor what the posted speed was in any kind of fielded way. I actually asked for information both about tickets for violating the speed limits on arterials as well as in the neighborhood, the the current 25 miles per hour speed limit. So to the extent that, you know, we want to grapple with this with this issue further moving forward, I think it would be really helpful to have a better sense of of where the problem lies. Is the is the problem simply in what the speed limits are? Or should we also be considering making enforcement of our laws something that we have more focus on?
Speaker 0: Thank you, guys. Herbert Council Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 9: Yeah, thanks very much. I strongly support this legislation and I would just point out what many have said and that is this is not some radical move. If we adopt this legislation today, Seattle will have speed limits that are exactly the same as every other city and King County. So I know that some are opposed to this, but this is a really smart move to save lives and reduce serious injuries on our roadways.
Speaker 0: So in closing debate, I'll simply say I came up with this little phrase, I want you guys to remember a toe is plenty. So I thought of I just thought of this on the on the spot here. Absolutely. Our our pleasure supporting this legislation because a brand you won't see any closing words. Are you ready to vote?
Speaker 9: Let's get that speeding right down as fast as possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we are.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: HERBOLD Hi. Johnson. Whereas I. O'Brien So aren't I BAGSHAW Burgess. Gonzales President Herrell. Hi. Nine In Favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in the Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to arterial and non-arterial speed limits; amending Sections 11.52.060 and 11.52.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CF 314320 | Speaker 7: Agenda item 18 5314 320 Petition of s c d to you LLC for the vacation of the I between University Street, Second Avenue, Seneca Street and First Avenue, BLOCK six and a second edition. The committee recommends the petition be approved as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 9: Think so? This is a vacation of an alley on a project known as to in you. It's a high rise commercial building happening on Second and University. I really think this is a great project and taking a public benefit for these types of projects in the right direction. You may recall that I've been skeptical or critical of projects in the past. One of the things, a couple of things that this project has that are unique and a hopefully groundbreaking and trendsetting part of the public benefit is a public plaza, which is what we see a lot. But this project has gone out of the way to really design the plaza in a way that it feels like a project, a space that will be available to the public, not merely serving the residents or the tenants of the building and the public as an afterthought by elevating the building nearly 70 feet off the ground and opening up the whole ground level. I believe they're going to accomplish a lot when this is done. A second thing that I want to call out that I think is a great step forward on this is they're providing to ground level spaces that will be available as art space or performance space for free to the public on an ongoing basis. Those will be managed by third parties to make sure that there's equitable access to those. But it's a response to community needs that they heard that a lot of artists are having trouble finding performance or rehearsal space, and so by providing that space for free indefinitely, it's a huge commitment and I think a huge public benefit that I'm excited to support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It comes from Brian. Any further comments? Councilmember Beckstrom.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I was supposed to divulge but also acknowledge there's no conflict. I live immediately kitty corner from this new project going in. So I have so divulged and I will be voting for this.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any further comments? Those in favor of approving the petition as condition please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the petition as approved, as conditioned, and the chair will sign the conditions of the council. Please read the next agenda item. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of SCD 2U LLC for the vacation of the alley between University Street, Second Avenue, Seneca Street, and First Avenue in Block 6, Denny’s AA Second Addition. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_Res 31700 | Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Brian. Any further comments on this legislation saying that those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted. The chair sign it. Please read agenda item number 20 into the record.
Speaker 7: Agenda item 20 Resolution three one 700 Granting conceptual approval to Swedish health services to construct and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under and across Motor Avenue, south of Columbia Street and north of Cherry Street. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 9: Councilmember O'Brien This item is from the same project that we talked about, an item 15. This is resolutions for conceptual approval. So what we do is we say, yes, conceptually this tunnel, the pedestrian tunnel under, under and across minor, we approve. They have some work to do to come back and be more specific. And at that point we'd have an ordinance to approve it similar to the other project. They've worked closely with community members on this and the investments they're going to make for public benefit are well supported and I think justify support of this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Bryan, are there any comments, all those in favor of the resolution vote? I, i those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted. The chair will sign it. Agenda item number 21.
Speaker 7: Agenda item 21 Resolution 31706 approving the Seattle Freight Master Plan. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to Swedish Health Services to construct and maintain a pedestrian tunnel under and across Minor Avenue, south of Columbia Street and north of Cherry Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09262016_CB 118797 | Speaker 0: Please read the report.
Speaker 7: The Report of the Parks Datacentre Libraries and Waterfront Committee. Jan Item 22 Constable 118 797 relate to the Department of Parks Recreation authorizing sentence of a donation of real property in Seattle from the Madison Valley Park Foundation for Open Space Park and Recreation Purposes Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Whereas I think you said just about everything, Madam Secretary. This is a generous donation from the Park family, and as they shared this morning, the park will retain its name and current status. This supports our commitment to open space and green space in park and recreation endeavors, and the committee recommends the passage of the bill to accept the land.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Herbold Johnson.
Speaker 1: Or is I O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzales. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and the chair of the Senate. You read the next two appointments. You can read those together if you like.
Speaker 7: Agenda items 23 and 24 appointments 46. Appointment of Juror IKEA's members. Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees return to April 1st, 2019 and appointment 511 Appointment of Ronnie Chiu as member Seattle Public Library Board of Trustees for term of Confirmation to April 21st, 2021. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acceptance of a donation of real property in Seattle from the Madison Valley Park Foundation for open space, park, and recreation purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09192016_CB 118765 | Speaker 2: Bill pass and show sign it. Committee report. Please read the next report into the record, please.
Speaker 6: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 765 relating to employment in Seattle. Adding a new Chapter 14.22 to set limits for code, establishing secure scheduling requirements for covered retail and food services establishments, prescribing remedies and enforcement procedures in many Section 14.20 point zero 25 Ceremonies for code to have good faith estimates of work schedules to notice of employment information amending Section 6.208.0 27 Code to Condition Business License Registration on compliance with secure scheduling requirements and amending Section 3.14 point 945 for CO two and Chapter 14.22 to the list of ordinances administered and enforced by the Office of Labor Standards Committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I'd like to just give a little bit of background about how we got to this place. The process began shortly after I took office in February. Councilmembers Suarez, Gonzales and myself penned an op ed that I think really identified and highlighted what the issues were. We're often asked, what is the problem that you're trying to trying to solve and what are that? What are the struggles that workers are having to deal with that this policy would help address? Here are a few of the statistics that we quoted in that op ed at that time. In February, almost half of African-American and Latino workers, 49 and 46%, respectively, report a week or less of advance notice of their schedules. 41% of what they call early career workers. And those aren't teenagers. Those are folks who are between 26 and 32 years old working in hourly jobs. Of them, 47% work part time. And they report that they they will know when they need to work again one week or less in advance of the upcoming week. 70% of workers have on call responsibilities, with the majority of employees receiving less than 6 hours notice before they start work. And 83% of hourly part time workers report fluctuations in weekly work hours during the prior month. With the magnitude of fluctuations averaging a daunting 87%. So that means for folks who are working or who are hired to work approximately 30 hours a week, only about 20 of those hours would be would be stable work hours over the course of a month. These stats really highlight how work schedules disproportionately affect people of color and do not promote the health and well-being of Seattle's working families. Similarly, 40% of households are headed by women who are the primary wage earners in their families, and 63% of those are headed by single mothers. So these these policies not just disproportionately impact people of color in the city, but but specifically women of color. The first time we discussed this issue in the cities civil rights, utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee was on March 8th, and we had a presentation from Professor Susan Lambert from the University of Chicago. And we learned that these just in time scheduling practices that employers are using more and more is a is a new manifestation of a of an effort on the part of employers to address their needs to control labor costs by staying within hours, doing due to tight labor budgets. All of this leads to greater unsettled scheduling, unpredictability and volatile to volatility, a higher head count of part time workers. Another emerging problem is the workforce is being taken up of more and more part time workers, and fewer hours on average worked. Since that March 8th meeting, the mayor's office has convened 17 stakeholder meetings of both workers and employers. And each one of those meetings was followed by a report out to to my committee. Additionally, I know myself as well as other Council members, have met with numerous individuals, including business owners, workers and worker advocates. The result of all those meetings, phone calls and emails is the legislation we have before us today. The main policy points are, first of all, businesses are only covered if they have 500 or more employees. And for full service restaurants, you also they also have to have 40 locations. Again, 500 employees and 40 locations for four full service restaurants. The way the reason why we focused on these larger employers is because larger businesses have the H.R., the human resources support capable of implementing this legislation. And we also know that the greatest number of hourly, low wage workers will benefit from the most by focusing on this particular population of workers. Another element of the bill is that it will require 14 days advance notice for schedules. It will require a written good faith effort of expected hours at the time of how to hire. It will require 10 hours, right, Tyrus? Between closing and opening shifts. Similarly to overtime, this can be voluntarily waived for time and a half wages for the difference between the start of the shift and the ten hour rest period. The legislation will also require predictability. Pay of one hour of wages. And only for non employee requested schedule additions for schedule changes that are employee initiated or the result of an employer requesting a schedule change and doing so by a mass communication. There will not be predictability pay incurred. Another element is that for folks who are working on working on call or who have there were their hours in voluntarily reduced, those folks will get half time pay. And then finally the the bill as proposed requires access to additional hours for existing employees before outside recruitment environment hiring and that will deal. In a in a large part to address the this move towards part time employment that I mentioned earlier, giving folks who are currently on the job at a workplace an opportunity to get more hours before doing outside recruitment. After the the bill was introduced, there are a number of of amendments made to the bill to further improve it. I want to highlight a couple of them. We have an evaluation of the ordinance that is intended to track its effectiveness over a two year period. And we also have an amendment thanks to Council President Harrell, that highlights the expectations that the Office of Labor Standards will provide technical assistance to business early and often to make sure that they know how to adhere to the law and that the recordkeeping requirements aren't burdensome. Much like paid sick and safe leave and the minimum wage, Seattle is again a national leader in workers rights. Other jurisdictions are also looking at similar policy jurisdictions like Albuquerque, New York City, Washington, Washington, D.C., and the states of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, New York State, Oregon and Rhode Island are considering similar types of policies . In fact, just last week, Mayor de Blasio in New York City announced that he's supporting legislation that would prohibit fast food chains from changing employees schedules at the very last minute throughout this seven month process. Many people have worked hard to produce this legislation. I'd like to take a moment to thank folks who have been involved, all councilmembers and their staff, but especially Councilmember Gonzalez and her staff for Brianna Thomas for being so engaged and collaborative throughout this process. The mayor and the mayor's staff, specifically David Mendoza and Robert Feldstein, the Office of Labor Standards, including Bill and Or and Karina Boyle, the law department, specifically Molly Daley, Brendan Asleep. Carlton Sue and Paul Olson. Patricia Lee on our own council central staff and Alex Clardy of my staff. Susan Lambert from the University of Chicago and Lee Golden from Penn State for their academic research, the City of San Francisco and their Deputy Director of Office of Labor Standards, Seema Patel. Over 50 business stakeholders who participated in a very long stakeholder process. I appreciate their engagement and the worker advocates specifically working Washington who not only participated in the stakeholder process but have toiled far, but toiled long before the beginning of our deliberations to elevate the importance of the critical needs for secure scheduling practices and above all , the workers themselves for sharing their stories with us. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Comes from a herbold. You. My colleagues would like to speak to them. The legislation comes from Gonzales.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I am very excited to be a co-sponsor and a coconspirator, I guess in some ways on this piece of legislation that has taken many, many months to get here. And Councilmember Herbal did a very good job of laying out all of the critical components of this particular law. I want to spend a little bit of time sharing my perspective on it. So certainly after dozens of meetings and countless conversations with business owners, labor and workers today, city council will make the city of Seattle only the second city to respect the time of hourly workers through this secure scheduling law. And I want to thank working Washington. Many of you are here today, along with you of CW and other labor leaders, because you made sure that this city council and that the rest of the city heard that your time counts. Starting in January, Councilmember Herbold and I began the process of having conversations with so many of you and others in the community about why this issue is so important. We heard some of those stories even today, not being able to pay the rent or wondering whether you're one paycheck away from being homeless, shuffling at the last minute to find childcare and sleeping through college classes because of back to back shifts without time and opportunity to rest. These are all choices that should not have to be made by anyone but through our own study of Seattle's scheduling practices. We learned that Seattle is not immune from these burdensome scheduling practices. And what's worse, we confirmed that they fall disproportionately upon immigrants, non-English speakers and.
Speaker 4: Women.
Speaker 6: Particularly women of color. This today, this legislation, but more importantly, each of you sitting here. This is what economic security and the demand for economic security looks like. We are shifting the power to workers so that you as workers, can influence and shape your schedules. And that is a critical part of our promise of fulfilling the $15 minimum wage and combating income inequality in our city. It is meaningless, in my view, to have. The nation's highest minimum wage if you only get to work 5 hours next week. That is not income equality. It is hard to imagine how one can reasonably advance in their careers, manage family demands or graduate from college if at the same time you're planning your life one shift and one erratic paycheck in advance. I believe that this law strikes a balance between the desire for flexibility and the need for economic and life security for those working in the restaurant and retail service industries. I myself worked three different jobs in retail and restaurant and in the retail and restaurant service to pay for college. I understand what it means to struggle everyday and to make the tough decisions about whether today is going to be the day that you pay your light bill or whether today is the day that you are going to eat. Those are not choices that we should subject anyone in our city to. And I want to thank you all for reminding us of the importance that you play in our city and in this movement for income inequality, to make sure that we are held accountable to you in that regard. So I want to thank you all. This victory is your victory, and I'm going to be really excited to see this law passed today. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council members want.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Harrell. I also wanted to begin by thanking all the activists and organizers from working Washington, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 21, the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, who have been the backbone of this movement for this legislation. Also thank councilmembers horrible and Juan Gonzalez and their staff for working on this. I wanted to especially thank Patricia Lee, who's standing there from central staff who has been working Saturdays and Sundays to make sure the legislation is up to date and actually available to the council to act on. And also, I thank the Office of Labor Standards and David Mendoza from the mayor's office for keeping an eagle eye out for loopholes. I particularly. I particularly thank all the courageous workers who have spoken out for basic rights. The labor movement in Seattle and across the country is growing and fighting back after what have been decades of retreat, defeat and decline. In the 1980s, when many people in this room were not even born, Ronald Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union, and he was only able to do that because at that time, the other major unions in this country could not find the courage to defy the Taft-Hartley Act and join in solidarity with their struggle. And for decades after that, the labor movement and consequently workers all across America have continued to lose. Workers wages have stagnated and declined. Workplace conditions have deteriorated dramatically, especially for women, people of color and immigrants. The wealth inequality has skyrocketed. Until we now have this absurd situation in the world that 62 richest people own as much as half of the world that is the poorest 3.5 billion combined. But now the labor movement and workers are building again, joining together in solidarity. And we are winning. We won 15 sick and save time and we are winning tenants rights as well. And we are going to win secure scheduling in Seattle today. And I agree with Sage Patrick that a worker in Washington who said that what happens in Seattle does not stay in Seattle. So we know that just like 15, this victory is going to be contagious in America. The full force of this movement also had the power to defeat every loophole that big business tried to sneak through at the last committee meeting. Each victory of the workers movement builds the confidence of workers in other cities and to fight for their rights. Activists in Mexico City are now fighting for 15. It is not an accident that workers have to build a movement and a political struggle for decent wages, decent schedules and humane workplace conditions. All these all this backlash against workers is intrinsic to the laws of capitalism. Under capitalism, money is power, and the private profits of multibillionaires are invested into buying out or undercutting their competitors. And whatever big business is the most exploitative to workers. And the environment is rewarded under capitalism with the greatest profit to leverage for greater power to do the same thing with even more intensity. But all this is possible only if workers we as workers let them do it, because without our brain and muscle, they cannot produce, transport, do or sell anything because workers do all the work . We have all the power when we are organized in solidarity to stand up for our interests. When our workers came to council chambers not very long ago to speak out against incredibly abusive scheduling practices. They were joined by workers and representatives by from UFC W and Rosie and the Labor Council, and they have won increased wages and have been emboldened now to fight for real power in the workplace to defend their rights in the future. Thank you to all the activists and workers who are here today to fight for a better life for all people, all workers in Seattle. We also need everyone here to join in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and the Housing Justice Movement to fight to redirect $160 million that the city says it can raise. Instead of using that money to build another police precinct, which many activists have correctly called a bunker. That money should be used to build a thousand units of affordable housing. I agree. I agree with all those activists today who have spoken on this issue and have said that while it is a significant victory, that we were able to push the mayor and many council members into this temporary block of the bunker, we need this block to be permanent. And what we need is for this money to be permanently allocated towards affordable housing and away from a new police precinct.
Speaker 0: I also. I also stand.
Speaker 1: In solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement in opposing a new EU jail. Unfortunately for our movement, I was the I was the sole no vote on the EU jail when the issue came to the Council last year. We need to make sure that we hold all elected officials accountable on both the EU jail and the police precinct issue, because as we recall, the Department of Justice said there is a change of culture that is needed in the police department, not a change in building. So I urge you all to join me at the rally that I am organizing for this Thursday, September 22nd, at 6 p.m. at Washington Hall, which is on the corner of 14th and Gessler. Let's make sure we block the bunker permanently and allocate all that money for affordable housing from 15 to tenants. Right. To secure scheduling to block the bunker. Regular working people, especially young people in Seattle, are showing the power of movements and proving that when we have the courage to fight, we can win.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Swamp. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. I just want to say a couple of quick things. As a former restaurant worker myself, I've spent a lot of time working with single moms, juggling work and childcare because of a lack of notice of scheduling. And throughout the legislative process, led by council members Herbold and Gonzales, I heard a lot from a lot of different folks. Brewster's waiting up until late on a Saturday night, not knowing whether or not they'd be working at 4:00 the next morning to open the coffee shop. Workers have been offered part time jobs with promises of hours, only to see more part time workers hired to compete for those same hours. And I've also heard a lot from workers who enjoy their flexibility, getting hours to allow them to go to school or have additional jobs, to be able to trade, shift their employees and pick up additional hours and earn additional tips as necessary. And I think through careful and thoughtful legislation and amendments, I believe that the Council's carefully navigated that balance of predictability and security and scheduling and the flexibility to earn the money that you need and work when you see fit. I also just generally want to say that the cities conversation around this topic is not divorced from our overall conversation about how the city is growing and changing. It's growing fast. We're one of the fastest growing cities in the country and the economy is changing along with it. And when we talk about growth and development and secure scheduling, we're also talking about housing affordability and reliable transit and income inequality and what it means to really work and live in the city. And so I'm proud to be able to vote in support of the secure scheduling legislation and look forward to further discussions about how we continue to make the city an affordable place for everybody. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Unless any of my other colleagues want to say any closing words. I think we heard some inspirational speeches among our colleagues. And so when we quit while our head and I asked the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill Johnson II.
Speaker 6: Whereas I.
Speaker 3: O'Brien High Sergeant I Bagshaw Burgess.
Speaker 9: High.
Speaker 8: Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 8: Herbold Heck yeah.
Speaker 3: President Hero. High nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: I. Thank you. The bill passed. The chair will gladly sign it. Thank you again for celebrating with us. Please call the next agenda item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; adding a new Chapter 14.22 to the Seattle Municipal Code; establishing secure scheduling requirements for covered retail and food services establishments; prescribing remedies and enforcement procedures; amending Section 14.20.025 of the Seattle Municipal Code to add good faith estimates of work schedules to notice of employment information; amending Section 6.208.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code to condition business license registration on compliance with secure scheduling requirements; and amending Section 3.14.945 of the Seattle Municipal Code to add Chapter 14.22 to the list of ordinances administered and enforced by the Office of Labor Standards. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09192016_CB 118801 | Speaker 6: The report of the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item to cancel 118801 relating to the satellite department and many subsection 21.40 9.0. 86.80 of this item is the code to create net wholesale revenue targets for 2017 and 2018, consistent with those assumed in the city like 2017 through 2022. Strategic Plan adopted by Resolution 31678. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Council members to watch.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Both know this is a routine ordinance that approved Seattle City Lights net wholesale revenue targets. Satellite produces more energy than its customer base uses and sells the excess on the open market. Does that target for the revenue produced in this way in order to plan for it in the budget and this ordinance in this ordinance , Seattle City Lights set a target for a $60 million a year in net wholesale revenue for both 2017 and 2018, which happens to be the same as the target previously set for 2016. The Energy and Environment Committee recommended council passed this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Are there any comments or questions saying none? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 3: Whereas I. O'Brien I saw what I. Bagshaw I just. Hi. Gonzales. Herbold. Hi. President. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passed and chair was Senate. Please read the report of the planning land use and Zoning Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; amending subsection 21.49.086.D of the Seattle Municipal Code to create Net Wholesale Revenue targets for 2017 and 2018 consistent with those assumed in the City Light 2017-2022 Strategic Plan adopted by Resolution 31678. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09192016_CF 314324 | Speaker 2: Bill passed and chair was Senate. Please read the report of the planning land use and Zoning Committee.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item 3:00 File 314 324 Application of Brooklyn 50 LLC to rezone approximately 5000 square feet of land located at 50 zero one Brooklyn Avenue, north from low rise three multifamily residential to neighborhood commercial three with a 65 foot height limit for construction of a seven story building containing 60 residential units and 1500 square feet of retail space. At ground level, the committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. This item in front of us relates to the clerk file, which would grant the petition of Brooklyn 50 LLC for a contract reason. As the clerk outlined the current zoning in this neighborhood as low rise three multifamily residential. This contract rezone would change it to a neighborhood commercial three with a 65 foot high limit to facilitate the development of. As our clerk said, 60 small efficiency residential units and 1500 square feet of ground floor retail space. As you can find in the record, the project was redesigned to preserve the existing exceptional tree located on the northeast portion of the property, and the committee recommends the petition be granted and this clerk file would approve the findings, conclusions and decision. I'd move adoption of court file 314324.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Johnson. Any comments or questions on this clerk file? CNN. Those in favor of granting the application as conditioned. Please vote I by those opposed, vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as conditions and the Chair will assign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Brooklyn 50 LLC to rezone approximately 5,008 square feet of land located at 5001 Brooklyn Ave North from Lowrise 3 multifamily residential (LR3) to Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 65 foot height limit (NC3 65) for construction of a seven story building containing 60 residential units and 1,500 square feet of retail space at ground level (Project No. 3019997, Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09192016_CB 118784 | Speaker 2: Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda item for accountable 118 784 Relating to lending since only amending Chapter 23.32 ceremonies occurred at Page 60 of the official land use map tourism property located at 50 zero one Brooklyn Avenue, northeast from low rise three to neighborhood commercial three, dash 65 and accepting property is in development agreement is conditioned of rezoning approval committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 2: Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 5: This directly relates to the agenda item preceding it. So this action would amend the official land use map and accept the property use and development agreement that requires the applicant to adhere to the conditions as stated by the hearings. Examiner The committee recommended passage and I would move countable 118784.
Speaker 2: Are there any questions or comments?
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. We have a. We have a substitute.
Speaker 5: Oh, I apologize. I moved to amend the Council Bill 118784 excepted by substituting the executed properties and development agreement for the non executed version. I apologize for that to our clerk.
Speaker 2: Is there a second? It's been moved in seconds to substitute the version stated by Councilmember Johnson. All those in favor of the substitution say i, i, i. Those opposed. Guys have we have a substitute bill. And so now I'd like you to call a rule on the passage of the substituted Bill Johnson.
Speaker 3: All right. Whereas I. O'Brien. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. I Herbold. President Harrell. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passed and Cheryl signed it. Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda item four Constable 118 784 Relating to land use and zoning in many. Chapter 23.32 items for code at page 60. Excuse me. Ten, ten, five. Clerk File 3143 12. Application of Jody Patterson O'Hare Theresa Land at 2220 East Union Street. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at page 60 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone property located at 5001 Brooklyn Ave NE from Lowrise 3 (LR3) to Neighborhood Commercial 3-65 (NC3-65), and accepting a Property Use and Development Agreement as a condition of rezone approval. (Petition by Brooklyn 50 LLC, C.F. 314324, SDCI Project 3019997) | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09192016_CF 314312 | Speaker 6: Agenda item four Constable 118 784 Relating to land use and zoning in many. Chapter 23.32 items for code at page 60. Excuse me. Ten, ten, five. Clerk File 3143 12. Application of Jody Patterson O'Hare Theresa Land at 2220 East Union Street. From neighborhood commercial two with a 40 foot height limit to her neighborhood commercial two with a 65 foot height limit for future construction of a 144 unit apartment with ground floor retail and below grade parking committee recommends the application be granted as conditioned.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Again, another contract result in front of us. This clerk file changes the height limit from 40 foot high limits to a 65 foot high limit to construct 144 unit apartments with ground floor retail. The Design Commission recommended changes. I'm sorry, the design review board recommended changes that have been made to respond to the neighboring property, and the applicant would actually also make payments under a mandatory housing affordability commercial program for the retail floor area, as well as provide for units of affordable housing, which is going to be great. The committee recommended the petition be granted and recommended the approval of the findings, conclusions and Decisions document in front of us right now.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Concerned Johnson, are there any questions on this piece of legislation? So those in favor of granting the application as condition please vote i.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the application application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the Council. Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item six Council Bill 118 785 Relating to land use and zoning in many Charter 23.32 Code Page 112 of the official land use map trees and property located at 2220 East Union Street for neighborhood commercial to dash 42 Neighborhood Commercial to dash 65 and from neighborhood commercial judiciary with the pedestrian designation to neighborhood commercial to dash | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Jodi Patterson-O’Hare to rezone land at 2220 E. Union St. from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 40 foot height limit (NC2-40’) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 65 foot height limit (NC2-65’), for future construction of a 144 unit apartment with ground floor retail and below grade parking (Project No. 3019001; Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_Res 31701 | Speaker 10: Resolution 31701 calling for a special election to fill a vacancy in the city, employee elected position on the Civil Service Commission and directing the city clerk to administer the election.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you. There are.
Speaker 2: So this this resolution is much less controversial. As you know, the Civil Service Commission is an independent body that is created by the city charter to hear appeals involving the administration of the personnel system, particularly with regards to disciplinary actions or alleged violations of the city charter, the personnel rules, etc.. The Civil Service Commission consists of three members, including one member appointed by the mayor, one appointed by the council, and one member elected by eligible city employees. We have a vacancy in that commission by virtue of the departure of Mr.. I'm sorry, Mr.. Steven Joel. I don't mean departure in a negative way. He is just dropped from the commission. And we certainly want to thank Mr. Steve and Joel for the outstanding and fine work that he's done. He's widely respected in arbitration, labor relations circles, but he is no longer on the commission. We have a vacancy, and this legislation simply adopts the process by which the election for that position can move forward by virtue of the departure. Any questions on this resolution? I can do this just by roll call, so please call the roll on the you know those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i i those opposed vote no. The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted and will sign it. Please go to the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION calling for a special election to fill a vacancy in the City employee-elected position on the Civil Service Commission and directing the City Clerk to administer the election. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_Res 31703 | Speaker 10: Agenda item four Resolution 31703 Supporting Washington Initiative Measure 1433 and urging Seattle voters to vote yes on Initiative 1433 on the November eight, 2016 general election ballot.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So this resolution is calling on support for initiative Measure 1433, which is again urging Seattle voters vote yes on a minimum wage, statewide minimum minimum wage increase to $13.50 an hour by 2020. Again, I'm not saying I'm just describing the context of this resolution is projected to add up to $600, the increased minimum wage of 1433 passes to the pockets of more than 730,000 minimum wage workers in Washington every month is projected to add nearly 2.5 billion to the state's economy every year. And as I described this morning during a council briefing, the current Washington state minimum is $9.47 an hour. And so what I will do is describe what I will do is introduce it for a vote, and then I'll ask if any of my colleagues would like to speak on this resolution, which is supporting initiative Measure 1491. I move to pass actually. You know, the script is a little weird because. Because it's a resolution. I know. I will. I will. I'll just I'm going to deviate from the script just a little bit.
Speaker 5: I can't not.
Speaker 2: I move to adopt resolution 31703. Is there a second?
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 2: Okay. Now let's hear some comments, pro or con, from many of my colleagues relative to this resolution. I got council members who want.
Speaker 5: Getting my herbal.
Speaker 2: Tea. I got Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Was.
Speaker 2: I know Castro was like playing cleanup. So Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 6: So just a few few thoughts here. Addition of 1433 is an incredibly important piece of legislation both for our businesses and our economy, as well as workers. Raising the minimum wage would provide nearly 2.5 billion in earnings.
Speaker 4: More for workers, over four over.
Speaker 6: 730,000 low wage workers across the state. We know that since those with low incomes are likely to spend additional resources on necessities like food and clothing, communities and businesses throughout Washington state will benefit as well. Women and people of color are disproportionately represented among those not being paid enough to make ends meet and so that they would especially benefit from this passage of this initiative. Just to give you a little bit of detail on how this would impact an average family for a person working full time, earning $10 an hour and increase to 1350 an hour would mean an extra 600 sorry, $607 per month to spend on rent, food, utilities or save for the future. That's a much needed boost for the over one in five parents in the state trying to raise kids on less than 1350 an hour, or for the young single adult trying to save for a car or school. I urge your support and yes, vote on this resolution.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Customers want.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Brighton Hove. I am happy to have this opportunity to publicly support Initiative 1433 to raise the minimum wage throughout Washington State. I particularly wanted to thank all the organizers and activists who sacrificed time, money and energy to gather the hundreds of thousands of signatures that we needed to put on the ballot to achieve what our state legislators should have done themselves in the first place. All across the country, really? It has been regular working class people and activists who have forced the political establishment to raise wages through the power of our movements. Here in Seattle, it was the labor movement, Socialist Alternative and 15 now that put the $15 minimum wage on the agenda. And we got it passed six months after we elected a socialist. After 100 years in January of next year, workers of big businesses in Seattle will be going to the full $15 an hour. And as was mentioned before, this is going to disproportionately benefit the very people who are disproportionately negatively impacted by our system, which is women and people of color. In San Francisco, organizers in the labor movement have driven the process to increase the minimum wage. And all across the country, we are seeing minimum wage increase, as many of them to $15 an hour, because working class activists have been emboldened to fight for our rights by the successful example set by our movement. And SeaTac in Seattle and the Washington State movement is no exception. On the other hand, big business and the right wing has fought us tooth and nail. You only have to look at the example of Alaska Airlines, which has tried to disobey legal order after legal order in order to deny its workers and has recently suffered another defeat because the Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court in all the courts has sided with the workers. But we also have to be clear that the political establishment, which itself is tied to big business, has not made this easy for us, for us workers. Just to give you another ongoing example, as we fight for our state, minimum wage should be increased in Minneapolis. 50 now activists gathered tens of thousands of signatures to put $15 an hour on the ballot for November, and their city council refused to do it. 50 now took them to court and won. But then after that, nine out of the ten city council members made up entirely of Democrats appealed that decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is made up of Republicans that Republican Supreme Court made a political decision to kick it off the ballot, reversing the substantial precedent. You can see this example of where corporate Democrats work with Republicans and against the interests of working people. But now the activists in Minneapolis are continuing to build their movement, continuing to try and hold council members accountable for this betrayal and to force them to enact $15 an hour through ordinance. I cite this example to again stress that these victories are only because of the strength of the movement. They are not because the Democrats and Republicans who have dominated politics in our country for a century and a half, suddenly woke up one morning and discovered that workers are not getting paid enough to make ends meet and decided to do something about it. So again, thanks to all the activists, to the labor movement, to making this initiative a reality. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Jim Acosta from Charlotte, thank you for that. With any of my colleagues like to lend any more words and customer.
Speaker 6: GONZALES Just really briefly, you know, I think this initiative is really important and not one of the things that we have mentioned is that it not only includes a raise of the minimum wage statewide, but it also includes a pathway to earning paid, sick and safe time in addition to that. And as we know here in Seattle, both of those measures have had a tremendous beneficial impact, not just for our workers, but we've also seen that it's good for business as well, because our economy certainly continues to grow in spite of these pro-worker, working family policies. You know, as somebody who grew up in rural central Washington, in fact, I was just there over the weekend visiting family. Again, I have an opportunity to see, you know, just the suffocation of poverty that exists in other parts of our state and throughout our state, particularly in rural parts of our state. And I think that this is a tremendous opportunity for the city of Seattle to step out and and stand with those members in in communities outside of the city of Seattle who may not have progressive leadership to really send a strong message that these policies are good for working families and that it's important for us to to make sure that we bring along the rest of the residents of Washington State in this effort to achieve social justice and in this effort to break the chains of poverty that keep so many women, particularly women of color and other communities of color, just in the cycles of poverty for generations. So I'm really excited about the fact that we are putting this resolution forward, and I am hopeful that the voters will agree with all of the sentiments that have been said here today and with what the with the work that the organizers are doing and that we will see victory come November.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Gonzales, any further comments from any of my colleagues? The rules require that we extend the same amount of time for any members of the public with I to oppose this resolution. So I would call a public hearing for any members who would like to oppose this resolution supporting an increase in the minimum wage. Yes, ma'am. Come forward.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. I appreciate being able to speak. And I want to take my hat off to you for for this effort to raise the minimum wage. I just wish that you were older. I think that it's a wonderful thing. The difference between nine, nine, something and 13 something indeed will make a difference for people who are desperately trying to raise their families. But when you look at what it needs to be in this at this time, the minimum wage, you know, if it was the seventies, it would be 20 some dollars. And I know we're not there, but I know that if we're sincere about wanting to close the gap in this country, we've got to be bolder. And we've got to ask our leaders to be bolder about this. And 13 something is nice, but 15 something is nice. I just wish it were better. And maybe it means more. You need to do an income tax. Have an income tax in this state. And if we need to do that, then please, God, do that. Because what we got ain't working. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, man, for your comments. I will conclude the public comment period. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Carignan none. All those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The ayes have it. The motion carries and the resolutions adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda.
Speaker 10: Item five Resolution 3170 for supporting sound transit Proposition one ballot measure and urging Seattle voters to vote yes on Sound Transit Proposition one on the November 8th, 2016, general election ballot. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting Washington Initiative Measure 1433 and urging Seattle voters to vote “Yes” on Initiative 1433 on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_Res 31704 | Speaker 10: Item five Resolution 3170 for supporting sound transit Proposition one ballot measure and urging Seattle voters to vote yes on Sound Transit Proposition one on the November 8th, 2016, general election ballot.
Speaker 2: As I said during a council briefing this morning, this is a resolution supporting sound transit Proposition one ballot measure and urging Seattle voters vote yes on that proposition on the November 8th ballot. We could talk a lot about what this does by adding 62 miles of light rail and growing the existing system to 116 miles. But I'm going to stop there and ask if Councilmember Johnson or O'Brien would like to talk a little bit more about what this resolution. But because mine was context, I am going to move to pass it so we can have what I would assume will be some pro statements. So I'm going to move to pass council bill. I'm sorry, I'm going to move past resolution 31704. Is there a second? Second? Okay. Councilmember Johnson, would you like to begin.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Council President Harrell And when completed, if the voters choose to pass us to three November, our light rail system will actually be larger than Washington, D.C. metro systems. To put that into context for folks, there's a lot to like on this November ballot. This is yet another one of those measures that I think I'm hopeful that my colleagues will support. Regardless of where you sit on this day, as there's something in this ballot measure for you, whether you're building light rail to West Seattle in 14 years or to ballot in 19 years, both at grade separations, they've got travel time and speed reliability. Whether you're building infill stations at Graham Street or the 130th Street Station, whether you're looking at bus rapid transit improvements in Ballard and West Seattle and along Madison as part of our first five years Quick Wins program, whether they're talking about transit oriented development, affordable housing, where we're going to be putting more resources into both of those projects, completing the spine and regional growth, placemaking for the next 25 years is a critical path to ensuring that the region is economically competitive and can handle the growth that we're expected to see over the next 25 years. But the final, final couple of things I want to just say about this. As an environmentalist, I care a lot about this plan because transportation is our largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and we need to get people onto transit to help reduce our fossil fuel reliance. If you care about job creation, as I do, this plan will put $54 billion worth of people to work, creating the next generation of great labor opportunities and labor projects and the associated job creation that goes along with all those major capital project investments. If you care about alleviating poverty, as I do, multiple studies have shown that access to fast and reliable public transportation is one of the most strong determiner to get people out of poverty and into the middle class. And if you care about the economy, as I do, this opportunity to build out our light rail system is going to provide so much more travel time and reliability for folks in this region to get them out of congestion. Just today, I got on a train that left our station a block away and got me to ask you stadium in under 10 minutes. That is a bus trip that used to take 45 minutes. So we need this and I hope my colleagues vote yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Johnson. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: I thank you, Councilmember Johnson, for your leadership on this. And colleagues, I also hope we all support this. What we have before as the voters of the region, the peers, Snohomish and King County have an amazing opportunity before us this November. And it's an opportunity that I've heard from people throughout this region asking for it long before I was a city council member. Please get us a transit system that is speedy, reliable and gets me where I need to go. And this package does that. It's an opportunity, as Councilmember Johnson said, to address issues around mobility, around congestion and around the impacts of climate change. We're already seeing it's an outstanding opportunity, and I look forward to supporting this resolution and the ballot initiative in November, and I hope the voters of the region do also.
Speaker 2: Thank you from Bryan. Any other comments from any of my colleagues? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'd just like to thank Councilmember Robert Johnson and Mayor Ed Murray for their work on this on transit board, Councilmember O'Brien for coordinating the very successful city council resolution to sound transit, stating what the city wanted. And also, of course, Sound Transit Board Chair and King County executive Dave Cosentino for all his fine work in developing the ballot measure.
Speaker 2: Thank you for those words. Councilmember Sawant.
Speaker 9: Thank you. President Herold. Seattle's transportation infrastructure is woefully inadequate. We asked. I was to drive their cars, less to say the environment correctly so, and to relieve congestion on our roads. But the reality is that we don't have adequate alternatives. So how can working people get to work on time and do everything that they need for their families without a car in the absence of real mass transit? Many working people understand the impending damages of climate change and would love to take alternative transportation, public transportation, but simply do not have real options that will enable them to get through their day without significant delays. Sounds at Sound Transit three will be a major and long overdue addition to our transit infrastructure, and even this will not be sufficient to our needs, but it will be a huge step forward. And I'm really happy that we as a council are urging people to vote in favor of it by passing this resolution. It should be noted, however, the proposal is not perfect. It is funded by sales taxes, which are the most regressive taxes available. Sales taxes tax poor and working class people at a far higher rate than the wealthy and they are a big part of the funding of this transit project is an important reminder that elected officials need to show leadership not only in supporting and passing progressive initiatives that enable us to deal with climate change, but we also have to make sure that it happens in an economically progressive manner. Ultimately, we need to stop using regressive taxes, and we need to start taxing the many millionaires of this region. However, that is not the fault. Just Dosanjh on the tree. It is true for all taxes in this city, county and state. And the reality is that Sound Transit three is a really important increase in transit. And so it is absolutely critical that we all as voters support this initiative. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Concerns one. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Okay. So at this point, I'm going to open up for public comments. For many members of the public that would like to speak in opposition of or in support of the resolution to endorse the sound transit measure. Do I see any members of the public? And yes, we do. We have two takers, and this is important that we get to our record. So is there a sign up sheet for these fine folks? Okay.
Speaker 8: Oops.
Speaker 2: Okay. Will do. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So, I'm Alice Lockhart. I came here in support of Standing Rock.
Speaker 5: But this is a really important issue.
Speaker 4: I want to echo what the other lady said.
Speaker 6: This is great.
Speaker 4: It's not enough.
Speaker 10: If you know.
Speaker 5: The science says that.
Speaker 6: We need to decrease our.
Speaker 4: Greenhouse gases in this state and elsewhere by 8% per year. If we start now and buy more, if we wait to do that, an incremental improvement in sound transit is not going to cut it. We need, in fact, in this region and we can afford in this region free transit for everyone, which will.
Speaker 10: As I.
Speaker 11: Believe it was, Mr. Johnson.
Speaker 4: Said, also lift many.
Speaker 6: People out of.
Speaker 11: Poverty and into the middle class as a mere side effect of free transit. I hope that's the next thing that you all think about.
Speaker 4: And thank you, Emily, for.
Speaker 6: Suggesting that today.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I had Mr. Locke actually signed up on this measure. Mr. Locke, if you want to speak on the sound transit measure, either pro or con on the sound transit measure.
Speaker 8: And Paul La Belle La. You've already given $6 billion. We can't afford another 2 billion. The rail system should be made and operated to operate like an elevator where you don't need the operators. That's where your cost is. Those people riding on those rigs. Get top salary because they can they can choose the job they take. You're driving a bus or ride Mercedes rail cars. The money is not there. It looks like us who live off investments. The. Bonds in that case tell today's don't have very large payments. But 2%. The last bond i owned was 9.6%. Melissa more bombs. But people are still paying the bill. They're going to get a bill. Property taxes. Inflated the properties. A $70,000 home is now you can sell the thing for $3 million or more. The people are going to be around when all these bills come due. I'm not going to make it. It doing like it did to the Roman Empire. You know, the history books that we used to have. Of 80. Plane is going up against the empire collapsed in.
Speaker 2: No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Locke. Our next speaker on this resolution will be Paula Revere.
Speaker 5: Hi, champ. Thanks for the chance to speak. Nobody knew there were multiple sheets, by the way. Everybody outside. Hitler, abundant in opinions on all kinds of topics. Sound transit. I am totally pro transit as. As a kid growing up. I love trains and busses, and I waited as long as I could to get into a car. And it was because I had good instincts. Unfortunately, besides the tunnel ones which make absolute sense, taking up all the streets and all the parking spaces for our local businesses, I think was a terrible mistake. And I think there's a deliberate effort behind it. I won't get into that because not enough time. And it's not your deliberate effort. So what's happened is the streets are full of these things going by. And I know at some point there'll be thousands of people on them. But watching the city and all the parking and all the small businesses get hurt by all this construction and everything has been really hard to watch. 54 billion is twice the state budget. That's incredible for a very small percentage of the state's people to be driving, to be riding them.
Speaker 4: They have the double tall busses they could speed around.
Speaker 5: They're very.
Speaker 4: Flexible. We're getting transit like 15 years late.
Speaker 5: That was also deliberate. And then it got rushed in a certain kind of way and everybody was just so happy to have it. I don't think everyone thought enough about it so I wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4: I think that we need to stop and take a look at something more flexible.
Speaker 5: Because, you know, 20, 30 years out, this is outrageous for this kind of.
Speaker 4: Money. And I watch Sound Transit run.
Speaker 5: All those wonderful people that are there making votes. They ran the timetable. They ran the decisions. And I don't trust them. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Revere. I am going to there are any other people that like to speak in pro con on this resolution supporting sound transit measure. And if not, I will hold I will conclude that the a lot of time for public comment has expired. Okay. So we are ready to vote on this resolution. All those in favor of supporting the resolution vote? I think all those opposed vote no. The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION supporting Sound Transit (A Regional Transit Authority) Proposition 1 ballot measure and urging Seattle voters to vote “Yes” on Sound Transit Proposition 1 on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_Res 31709 | Speaker 10: For adoption of other resolutions. Resolution number 31709 proclaiming the City of Seattle support for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe's opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilmember Juarez.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Before I begin, I just want to thank the tribal leadership and community that showed up here today. It really means a lot to all of us who've worked hard on this. I want to thank you, President Harrell, for helping me and assisting me early on. Like to thank Councilmember Sawant and Councilmember Herbold for their.
Speaker 5: Comments and their additions to make this a stronger.
Speaker 4: Resolution. I want to end with just a few words, and I promise I won't be more than 2 minutes. I want to start with the statement that we believe in Indian Country, that the sacred is the sacred. We can go back and forth about the National Historic Preservation Act, which was passed in 1966. We can go around and around about the Clean Water Act, which was passed in 1948 and 19, 1972. We can go around and around about the Rivers and Harbors Act, which was passed in 1899, oldest federal environmental law in the United States. But we also know that the Standing Rock Sioux people were signatories to two treaties, the treaties of Fort Laramie in 1851 and the treaty in 1868. We also know that after over 200 years of federal law, Indian law jurisprudence, that treaties are the supreme law of the land. So I want to end with this. Tribes, Native Americans, indigenous people, my people have been here since time immemorial. And the passage of this resolution and the support by this community in the city of Seattle in support of the Standing Rock and Standing Rock Sioux tribe, is immense. So again, I want to end with this. The sacred is the sacred. And thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Suarez. Councilmember so watch.
Speaker 9: Thank you, president haaland. Thank you so much, Councilmember Suarez, for your comments. Since April, despite a longstanding media blackout that actually council member Suarez mentioned this morning. We have seen explosive growth in the movement against the Dakota Access pipeline. In many ways, the fight against a good access pipeline is reminiscent of the struggle that activists waged against Keystone XL and related struggles against pipelines by tribes and environmentalists in Canada. But where the Keystone XL struggle took years of organization, mobilization and resource resistance to see results, the No Dakota Access Pipeline movement has broken through to the mainstream in just a matter of months, and it's a reflection of the times that we live in. We live in times of social movements. In part, this breakthrough is also due to the recent organizational experience that we have gained tribes, environmentalists, young and old activists over the last few years. We've seen a broader level of engagement and an overwhelming and historic display of unity between tribes and communities rooted along the pipeline. Nearly 200 Indian nations, numerous environmental organizations and thousands of other activists have turned out to stand with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe against the pipeline, both at the Sacred Stone camp and around the country. Hundreds of the nonviolent demonstrators at the Sacred Stone camp have faced severe intimidation and repression, including state authorities in North Dakota, cutting off water and medical access to campers, the issuing of warrants and the arrests and of activists and journalists. The physical attacks on activists by attack dogs and pepper sprayed by the multinational paramilitary private security firm G4 as hired by the pipeline's corporate backers. Despite the Department of Justice's action last week, the fight against the Dakota Access pipeline is far from over. As we know, we need to continue to build solidarity, national and international and demand nothing less than an end to the pipeline itself. State and local authorities must drop all charges against the tens of tribe members and organizers with warrants, particularly the dozens who have already been arrested or charged. Among those charged are Democracy Now! Journalist Amy Goodman and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. The tribes and environmentalists and socialists on the ground know that allowing new pipelines to be built is a massive step in the wrong direction in the fight against climate change. It's a massively wrong step for our entire planet. Young people, children know it. Hundreds of millions of people around the world understand it. Then why does this keep happening? It keeps happening. Because the control of these resources is in the hands of oil corporations who are driven blindly by private profits and short term gains. And it's not like they don't have the IQ to understand the problem. They don't have the incentives to support the solutions. And that is why this is a question of political control. We cannot let the oil executives, the 1%, the multibillionaires, continue to drive climate change in their pursuit of profits. We cannot let the capitalists burn through every last extractable barrel, destroying our planet and destroying the rights, the basic rights of our indigenous communities. We need to organize independent of those corporate forces. We need to win this fight. And to win this fight, we will need to continue to wage defensive struggles like this one. But sisters and brothers, that is only the beginning. We need to take the fight to the very doorstep of those who profit from the perpetuation of this fossil fuel economy. And for that for that, we need to continue to build our mass movements, not only fighting these defensive struggles, but really fighting to move away from fossil fuels and going towards an economy that provides a path away from fossil fuels, towards renewable energy for living wage jobs, unionized jobs, education, health care and social services. But all of this depends on developing those mass movements that unite with one another across race and across ethnicities, ethnicities, but being clear that the 1% is not on our side. And for this, we also need the development of an independent party of the 99% that refuses to take money from big oil, a party that would promote and unabashedly socialist platform that can bring about a sustainable, economy, wide societal change we need. I wanted to thank Matt Rumley for authoring the first draft of this resolution. Gabe Galindo, Molly Kennedy, and everybody from our local community who weighed in on this. I especially wanted to thank Councilmember Juarez and everybody in her office who played a leadership role to work on this resolution. I'm very proud sisters and brothers to stand with the Standing Rock Sioux in this fight, and I thank them most of all for declaring their opposition and resistance to this pipeline. We will. We can and we will defeat the Dakota Access pipeline. And we can. And we will continue to build a mass movement necessary to win a just, sustainable and socialist economy for all.
Speaker 2: Council member Bagshaw. I believe you have your hand up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm not going to be anywhere near as specific as council members want, but I do want to say thank all of you that are in the audience today. Something that Councilmember Suarez said this morning that really resonated with me is that we are here to protect the.
Speaker 5: Resources.
Speaker 4: And that's what you are doing today. And I want to recognize the tribal nations that are here together, also those that have been fighting this North Dakota pipeline. But recognizing that it's really our opportunity in response to protect the earth and protect the water and protect each other. Thank you for this. I will, of course, be supporting it. And I want to say thanks to my holy mountain sister. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this. If I can get untangled here, this is a great step today. And I want to just share a couple of comments that I heard over the weekend about what was happening back in North Dakota and why we need to continue, why this resolution is still relevant today and it's going to require a lot of work going forward. I had a chance to hear from Tom Goldtooth, who's a Native American activist and executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, who had been out there last week. And it was appalling to hear the swiftness with which that pipeline company moved when they heard that the challenges were going to come on that land. Unfortunately, it's not altogether surprising, but within a day they completely demobilized and re mobilized on the site to commence the destruction of the habitat and the sacred lands as soon as possible to try to avert the type of challenge and that we have. Corporations that are willing to not just do evil, but to accelerate their evil is just it's unforgivable. And the stories Mr. Goldtooth told of other activists and the physical scars they had from when the dogs were unleashed on them, they will be with them for the rest of their lives. It was great to hear. Well, it was awful to hear that the judge ruling. It was great to hear how swiftly the Obama administration moved with their Justice Department and Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider that. That was a victory, a short term victory for a couple dozen miles of the pipeline. But there are almost a thousand miles of pipeline that are not affected by that. And all of this needs to be changed. Thank you for your leadership in bringing this to.
Speaker 2: Councilmember member. Whereas you we're going to we're going to take it home here. I want to hear that drum beating in a little bit here. But I see a hand and it comes over.
Speaker 6: HERBAL Thank you. I just wanted to say a bit about the fact that the protest of members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, hundreds of other Native people and their supporters, has sparked the need for national reform. Thanks to your sacrifice, the federal government has signaled its intent to really get serious about the enforcement of Article 32 of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, requiring that governments consult with indigenous people, and I quote, in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories or other resource. The Obama administration's Justice Department, in its joint statement with the Army and the Department of the Interior, also in very, very importantly, said this case highlights the need for a serious discussion about nationwide reforms with respect to considering the tribe's view on these types of infrastructure projects moving forward. I believe it's really important to support your efforts to organize as part of that nationwide reform so that the disregard for the rights of Native people that occurred at the Dakota Access Pipeline Project does not reoccur. And thank you, Councilmember Suarez, for your leadership on this issue.
Speaker 5: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Councilmember words. Would you just like say a brief closing? We've heard some very inspirational words from our colleagues.
Speaker 4: I. As Indian people were not raised to say I in me. So I had to learn.
Speaker 5: To transition, to say I in me.
Speaker 4: But I think today when I say I and me, I think you all know I mean you as well. We like to end with a story. And my story is very short.
Speaker 5: I could go over the three big briefs I read and.
Speaker 4: All the information.
Speaker 6: There, but that would be boring. When I worked.
Speaker 5: For a particular governor. Governor Lowry.
Speaker 4: One of my very.
Speaker 5: First staffing was with a major tribe, the accommodation and the tribes on the Columbia River.
Speaker 4: And a huge, huge hydropower source on the Columbia River. And I remember was.
Speaker 5: One of my first or second staff ins.
Speaker 4: And I remember the tribes opened by prayer and calling the Columbia River the giver of life. And I remember the power company started out with calling it the hydro. Power source. And I remember.
Speaker 5: Governor Lowery pulling.
Speaker 4: Me.
Speaker 5: Aside and going, What the hell? And I said, yes.
Speaker 6: This is the world.
Speaker 4: I walk in, the giver of life and a hydropower source.
Speaker 5: And somewhere in between we have to find a way to do the right thing for all of us.
Speaker 4: And as Indian people, we've done it through prayer.
Speaker 5: And we also know as Native American people.
Speaker 4: We've done it. So the power of pulling together.
Speaker 5: And recognizing that this world isn't ours, that this universe isn't ours.
Speaker 4: And it's been difficult for me sometimes in this job to to behave and speak differently. But I hope that I have served you well. And I.
Speaker 6: Want to thank all of you.
Speaker 5: Particularly tribal leadership, for being here, because I know my colleagues.
Speaker 4: Were anxious to hear from you. So it's good to see my brothers and sisters and aunties out there.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, President.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for being with us. I'm simply going to say what a beautiful native community we have. And it's our honor to support you and fight with you. Thank you very much. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will excitingly sign it. Thank you very much. Oh. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Now for something less dramatic. Oh, sorry, customer.
Speaker 8: I was just.
Speaker 2: Let's move back to agenda item, I believe. 24 please read that, that agenda item into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION proclaiming the City of Seattle’s Support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Opposition to the Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_CB 118768 | Speaker 2: Let's move back to agenda item, I believe. 24 please read that, that agenda item into the record.
Speaker 10: The Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item 24 Council 118 768 Relating to historic preservation posing controls upon the Gaslight in a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.2 of the State of Mississippi Code native to the table historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 ceremonies because the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Burgess, thank you.
Speaker 7: This is a piece of legislation that imposes controls upon the gaslight in which is a residential structure up on Capitol Hill. And I passed out a map to my colleagues, and you can see that this is located on the west side of 15th Avenue between East Olive and East Howell Street. This building was built in 1904 and was designated as a historic landmark in 19 2015. The controls we are about to adopt are those specified by the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for council members on this legislation? Matt, please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold. JOHNSON Whereas I. O'BRIEN Sergeant Bagshaw, hi.
Speaker 7: BURGESS Hi.
Speaker 3: GONZALES President. Herald Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passed. And Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the Gaslight Inn, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09122016_CB 118787 | Speaker 10: Agenda item 27 cancel 118 787 relating to property at some point authorizing the housing director to execute an amendment to end partial termination of the lease of City City of Seattle line authorized by ordinance 1224 959 as amended pursuant to Ordinance 1 to 3 195 to remove three parcels from the lease authorizing new leases of three new parcels to youth care and friends of use and deeds from the city to convey the buildings on those parcels to the lessees for the duration of the new leases and authorizing related documents and actions. The Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Customer Burgess.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This ordinance deals with three homes in the Sandpoint Magnuson Park complex. I passed out a map. Colleagues, these three buildings are building three 3331 and 332 at the south end of the Magnuson Park complex. This legislation transfers the ground lease from the organization Solid Ground to Youth Care and Friends of Youth. Those two organizations are currently operating these structures as youth group homes, and this will allow that to continue. With the new ground lease. In December of 2015, the Office of Housing awarded capital financing to Friends of Youth and Youth Care for rehabilitation and remodel of these homes. The ordinance simplifies that the management and lease is transferred to these two new organizations are not the organizations are not new, but the two new leaseholders.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Just want to say the Office of Housing Funding is critically important, but also is going to be done in collaboration with friends of youth and youth care so that these facilities continues to open during the renovations, which is going to be really important for those folks that are living in those facilities. Incredible organizations doing incredible work. They are the ones that are doing the work on the ground. Now, this just changes that ownership, as Councilmember Burgess said, between solid ground. Two Friends of care, really excited to have this in front of us. Another example of the city. Do a good job of helping get folks back on their feet.
Speaker 2: Excellent. Any further comments from any of our colleagues with that? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Herbold II. Johnson, i. Suarez I. O'Brien Sergeant Burgess. Gonzalez by President Harrell Rite Aid in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passed and chair will sign it next. Agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to property at Sand Point, authorizing the Housing Director to execute an amendment to and partial termination of the lease of City of Seattle land authorized by Ordinance 122459, as amended pursuant to Ordinance 123195, to remove three parcels from that lease; authorizing new leases of the removed parcels to YouthCare and Friends of Youth and deeds from the City to convey the buildings on those parcels to the lessees for the duration of the new leases; and authorizing related documents and actions. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09062016_CB 118752 | Speaker 2: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next report.
Speaker 1: Agenda item for Council Bill 118752 An ordinance amending ordinance 124 927, which adopted the 2016 budget, including the 2016 to 2021 Capital Improvement Program. Changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels and from various funds in the budget. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 4: Councilman Burgess, thank you. This is the second quarter supplemental budget ordinance. It provides expenditure authority requested by various city department as a result of developments that have happened since we approved the budget last fall. For example, it authorizes use of the funding received in the grants ordinance that we just adopted a moment ago. The total appropriations increase in the second quarter supplemental, including grant backed and other appropriations, is approximately $40 million of the $40 million. $5.8 million are appropriations from the city's general fund. A few highlights of the various expenditures that are authorized here. A total of $19.3 million is allocated to cover cost increases for the new Customer Information System Project at SPU and City Lights. $4.8 million goes to the police department for the hiring of for the funding of 42 new police officer positions. This is part of the proposed expansion of the police force by a total of 200 officers.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments?
Speaker 0: I have just one.
Speaker 2: Brief, I'm sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you. While we were on break, we received a request from our municipal court head, Karen Donahue, and it came in while we were on break. Nobody had an opportunity to really look at it. What she was asking for was resources to help with their community program that they have, which is, I think, excellent in terms of providing connection and services for people who are going through their court. I just want you to know that it I'm sorry that it didn't come in in a timely way, but I would like to look at this as part of our budget in October.
Speaker 4: And that could happen. I know that they had requested that funding from the city budget office and that funding was denied. But we could raise that at any time in the future.
Speaker 2: Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Gonzalez. I herbold. I Johnson. O'Brien. Hi, Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: President Harrell. All right. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: Bill passed in Cheryl Senate. Please read the next agenda items into the report. But if you could do those together, are they different? They're going to do them separately or.
Speaker 4: Item six. Excuse me. Item five. Item five is next. The Neighborhood Matching Fund.
Speaker 2: Okay. Please read the next section item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; creating both exempt and nonexempt positions; modifying positions; adding new projects; making cash transfers between various City funds; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2016-2021 CIP; revising project descriptions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09062016_Res 31691 | Speaker 1: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Resolution 31691. A resolution relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing submission of applications for grant funding, assistance for aquatic lands, enhancement account projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in RTW. 79.105.150. Chapter 79 8.25 ah S.W. Title 286 WAC and other applicable authorities. The Committees. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I am pinch hitting here for Councilmember Suarez as her vice chair of the Parks Committee. We have this item in the next two items or resolutions that will support grant applications. The reason that we do this is that we will be requesting money, but we will also have matching money. And we need to make sure that the granting organizations know that we are primed and ready to make our match. So this first one is a resolution that will support a grant application for $475,000 to the Aquatic Land Enhancement Account at the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board for the Arboretum Waterfront Trail. And these funds would be matched 1 to 1 with other revenue to improve a one half mile of trail connecting Fisher Island to the rest of the trail network, making the trail more ADA accessible, and fixing the ongoing flooding issues that can sometimes make the trail inaccessible. And the Parks Committee recommends two paths.
Speaker 2: Which are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and Cher will sign it. Next agenda item, please. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing submission of application(s) for grant funding assistance for Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) project(s) to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in RCW 79.105.150, chapter 79A.25 RCW, Title 286 WAC, and other applicable authorities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09062016_Res 31692 | Speaker 2: Which are there any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and Cher will sign it. Next agenda item, please.
Speaker 1: Agenda item ten Resolution 31692a resolution relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to submit applications for grant funding assistance for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79, a point 25, our S.W. Title 286 Washington Administrative Code and other Applicable Authorities. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: This and.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This resolution is supporting a grant application for $1,475,000 from the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program. At the again, at the Recreation Conservation Funding Board, $500,000 will go to a renovation of the Brighton play field. That's 200,000 square feet. $500,000 for renovation of Smith Cove play field. That's 5.6 acres and $475,000 will be dedicated to the Arboretum waterfront trail. And this would complement the grant application that I mentioned in item five, and we respectfully request this resolution be passed.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for the comments. Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31693. A resolution relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing submission of application of applications for grant funding, assistance for youth athletic facilities, projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79, a point 25, R.S. W WAC to eight six and other applicable authorities. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to submit application(s) for grant funding assistance for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) project(s) to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in chapter 79A.25 RCW, Title 286 WAC, and other applicable authorities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09062016_Res 31693 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31693. A resolution relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing submission of application of applications for grant funding, assistance for youth athletic facilities, projects to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board, as provided in Chapter 79, a point 25, R.S. W WAC to eight six and other applicable authorities. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 2: Customer Impact.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. This resolution is supporting a grant application for $500,000 from the Youth Athletics Facilities Project at the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board. Same organization. Again, we would dedicate $250,000 for the renovation of Brighton Play Field. This would complement the grant application that I just mentioned, as well as $250,000 for the renovation of Smith Cove Play Field. And we recommend that these these grant applications be approved as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote I high those oppose vote no. The motion carries, the resolutions dropped. And, Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing submission of application(s) for grant funding assistance for Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF) project(s) to the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board as provided in chapter 79A.25 RCW, WAC 286, and other applicable authorities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_CB 118754 | Speaker 0: Exigent item, please.
Speaker 10: Agenda item to cancel 0118 754 Relating to International Affairs and the Seattle Sister Cities Program amending section three point 14.4. 40.4 50.4 69.4 74. Code held August 8th, 2016.
Speaker 0: So this point on this agenda item I move to amend counts bill 118754 by substitute version four for version three A and just so you know, you may recall that I held this just because there were some typos in the first version so that the new versions are second to remove and second to amend. Council Bill 118754 Any further comments? All those are in favor of the amendment for I. I oppose. No. Okay. So what this legislation does very quickly is it broadens the scope of our Sister Cities program. You may recall the we have 21 sister cities across this world. In 1957, it started in Kobe, Japan, and they formed one of the first such AC relationships. But there's been a moratorium on the sister cities for quite some time. And we have a waiting list, if you will, to add sister cities with emerging cities around the world. So what we're trying to do here is expand its size and its scope to address issues, to strengthen our Sister Cities program. And I sort of had gone over this at the briefing with you, so I won't waste time in diving too deep in. And so basically we're changing its name and changing its scope from its is going from 20 members to 30 members. And we're looking at the scope to make sure we strengthen our cultural ties, particularly with those cities that have been sort of boxed out because of the moratorium and any further questions in this legislation. So this is a bill, so please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess. Hi. Gonzalez. Herbold. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Shire President Harrow.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 10: Seven in favor.
Speaker 0: Hey, O'Brien, give me his proxy. Can you count that in record?
Speaker 1: No, I can't do that. Okay.
Speaker 0: Please read the next report. And by the way, we're getting there. We just have an agenda. We'll get there. We'll get there. We'll get there for you to read the next report. We've already admitted our agenda. So we got the report. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to international affairs and the Seattle Sister Cities program, amending Sections 3.14.440, 3.14.450, 3.14.460, and 3.14.470 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_CB 118739 | Speaker 0: To outstanding candidates. Any comments from any of my colleagues? All those in favor of confirming those two appointments? Vote i. I, those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the next report into the agenda, please.
Speaker 10: Three Part of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item six Council 118 739 Increasing the fee or tax on persons engaged in or carrying on the business of the collecting of garbage, rubbish, trash, cdel waste and other solid waste. The many setting Mr. Code Section 5.40 8.0 55 and providing a special referendum opportunity as required by state law the committee recommends. The Bill Pass.
Speaker 0: Comes from Herbold. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Seven Relate to solid waste, solid waste rates and solid waste rate taxes. Seattle Public Utilities proposes to increase the 2017 2019 Solid Waste Waste rates to collect $26 million more in revenue in 2019 than was expected for 2016. This new revenue would fund increased costs for services, capital investments, higher enrollment in the utility discount program, and compliance with financial policies, as well as a proposed 2.7 percentage point increase in this city's solid waste business and occupation tax from a 11.5% to a total of 14.2%, revenue from the solid waste tax is deposited into the general fund and can be used for any municipal purpose. The executive estimates 3.2 million in 2017 and 4.4 million in 2018 in new revenue. Although this is an increase, it is still in line with the Seattle Public Utility Department's six year strategic plan and the targets for rate increases over a period.
Speaker 2: Of six years.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilor Herbold. Any further comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Burgess.
Speaker 2: Hi, Gonzalez. Purple. Hi Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. Shire President Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill Pass and Chair of the Senate. Next agenda item please.
Speaker 10: Agenda item seven Council Bill 118 740 Relating to the solid waste system of the Seattle Public Utilities revising rates and charges for solid waste services, revising credits to low income customers for solid waste services, and amending chapters 21.40 and 21.76 of the of Mr. Code Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, Herbert.
Speaker 6: I don't have anything further to add. My description to item six blended both the the impact of both items and seven together.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 5: Burgess II Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I Purple II Johnson Suarez O'Brien Bagshaw President Harrell I Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate next gen item please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE increasing the fee or tax on persons engaged in or carrying on the business of the collection of garbage, rubbish, trash, CDL waste, and other solid waste; amending Seattle Municipal Code Section 5.48.055; and providing a special referendum opportunity as required by state law. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_Res 31694 | Speaker 0: Thank you for the comments. All those in favor of confirming the appointment vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointment is confirmed. Adoption of other resolutions. Number 12.
Speaker 10: Please. Agenda item number 12, Resolution 31694 relating to Seattle Public Utilities, establishing a customer review panel to provide input to the 28 2018 through 2023 Strategic Business Plan Update.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Ordinarily, we would send this resolution to my my utilities committee for discussion, but we are working on a quick turnaround. The Seattle Public Utilities has a desire to get this review panel up and running. So we're sending it directly to full council without committee review. Just some quick background. Seattle Public Utilities has a six year strategic business plan. It's updated every three years. SPU expects to submit a new 2018 2023 proposed plan to council by mid-May 2017. When SPU developed its last plan, the Council directed SPU to create a customer review panel to provide input into that plan. And at the time, the panel was composed of nine members, five appointed by the mayor and four appointed by the council. The panel dissolved once the council adopted the 2015 2020 plan. This is an effort to reconstitute that committee. In addition to this panel, the utility also has three additional ongoing customer advisory committees, one for each water, solid waste, drainage and wastewater.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the comments about this resolution. I move to adopt resolution 3169. For those in favor of adopting the resolution, vote I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted. The chair will sign it next. Agenda Item. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to Seattle Public Utilities; establishing a Customer Review Panel to provide input to the 2018-2023 Strategic Business Plan Update. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_Res 31697 | Speaker 0: Agenda Item.
Speaker 10: Agenda Item 13 Resolution 316 97 Setting the public hearing on the petition of s c d to you LLC for the vacation of a portion of the alley in BLOCK six A.A. Dennis second edition to the City of Seattle and the Seattle Downtown Urban Center. According to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Code and Clerk file 314 320.
Speaker 0: Council Member Brian.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Washington State law requires that the council set public hearing dates for street and alley vacations by resolution because there are no substantive decisions related to setting this public hearing date. The legislation was introduced directly to full council. The public hearing for the vacation will be on September 14th at noon in the Sustainability and Transportation Committee meeting. Note that that is a special committee meeting. This impacts project at second and University, often referred to as two in you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments about this resolution? I move to adopt resolution 31697. Those in favor of adopting the resolution code i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution as adopted than Sherrill signage. Next agenda item, please. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of SCD 2U LLC for the vacation of a portion of the alley in Block 6, A.A. Denny’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle in the Seattle Downtown Urban Center, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and Clerk File 314320. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08152016_Res 31698 | Speaker 0: Next agenda item, please.
Speaker 10: Agenda item 14 Resolution 316 98 relating to council direction on budget and other matters related to the North Precinct Capital Project.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez, I believe. Will you lead the discussion, Casper and Burgess.
Speaker 2: I will. I will walk us through the components of the resolution that is before us. This is a resolution related to the existing proposal to construct a north precinct in north Seattle. This resolution, if approved by the city council, would it would direct the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to do several things. First, it would require that the Finance and Administrative Services Department hire an independent third party cost estimate or to ensure that the estimated project costs are are accurate and reasonable with an eye towards finding additional cost savings. The resolution also directs the Finance and Administrative Services to engage in that independent cost estimate analysis in two different junctions throughout the project. First, it would be at the 60% construction documents submittal phase, and then again at the 90% construction documents submittal phase. Again, all towards and I of trying to continue to reduce the costs associated with the this particular project. It also would direct the Finance and Administrative Services Department with the assistance of the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Department of Neighborhoods and the Seattle Police Department to engage in a full racial equity toolkit. Analysis of the facility's design and operations, including the interior and exterior building design for all plan programmatic assets. Cost of the facility, consistent with the city's race and social justice initiative and consistent with Council Resolution 31164, which was passed in 2009 and reaffirmed excuse me, and directed city departments to use the available tools to assist in the elimination of racial and social social disparities. As part of the Racial Equity Toolkit analysis that is directed via this resolution, FISA will be required to solicit community perspectives from historically underrepresented populations, vulnerable populations. Those are most likely to interact with the police, those historically and disproportionately impacted by police action, and those most likely to be victims of crime. The resolution directs FASB to provide my committee the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee with report of its intended community engagement plan. It also requires that the race excuse me that the Racial Equity Toolkit analysis be completed by October 3rd of 2016. The results of the analysis are to be provided to the Gender Equity Safe Communities Enumerations Committee. Upon completion of the analysis and the resolution specifically expressly states that the results of the Racial Equity Toolkit analysis will help to inform the Council's decision on what is the appropriate total project cost of the North Precinct project in the course of the City Council's ordinary budgeting process around capital improvement programs. So in other words, the racial equity toolkit, because it will be completed on October 3rd and because City Council doesn't vote on the budget until the end of November, which we should and the community should have an opportunity to have the results of the racial equity toolkit analysis approximately 4 to 6 weeks before any decisions have to be have to be made. And I want to make sure that my colleagues know that we did speak with the Office for Civil Rights. They've indicated that they need approximately eight weeks or so to be able to complete the racial equity toolkit analysis and do it some justice. And so October 3rd is slightly shy. It's about a week shy of that eight week mark. So we may need to provide the Office for Civil Rights a little a little wiggle room around that October 3rd deadline, just to make sure that they they are able to fully engage in their in their toolkit analysis process and wanted to just disclose that for the benefit of the public and for the benefit of us. The resolution also directs FASB to provide my committee with regular progress reports, both written progress reports to the full council, but also progress reports to my committee. It will. Those progress reports are directed to include information on the current project status, design and community engagement efforts, along with the outcomes of community engagement efforts. A detailing of life to date expenditures. The most recent total project cost estimate with explanation of any changes since the last report and budget risk issues that may be identified in the course of and of all of the work that we anticipate that they're going to continue to do on the with respect to both the community aspects of the the north precinct facility and with regard to the training facilities of the North Precinct, it provides that both of those will be informed by the race and equity toolkit analysis that we anticipate receiving sometime in October. The last part of the resolution indicates that that it is essentially messages on the front end that we have to do something with the existing north precinct property and building. And to the extent that that that that occurs, which we anticipate it will, then then all of the funds that are appropriated, all the proceeds from the sale of either the property or the building where the current north precinct is sited would be wholly allocated to to meeting the city's affordable housing and affordable housing needs. And we haven't got an evaluation of that property quite yet. But the the the city budget office has indicated that it would be several millions of. That is the nuts and bolts of the resolution. And so I move for the adoption of resolution 31698 second.
Speaker 0: Council members now have good time to comment. As any council member. I'm probably going to see a bunch of hands go up here in a minute. If I wait long enough. We'd like to comment. Councilmember Brian.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I would like to comment. I want to start by thanking my colleagues, especially council member Gonzales Councilmember Herbold. And I know probably everyone at this table worked over the weekend and this morning to make some changes to this legislation, to get it to a point where I think it's a lot stronger this resolution. I want to start by saying that I do not support the north precinct in its current design. I. I do not I do not support the current budget for this. I've raised concerns, as have many others, through the number of meetings we've had, both public meetings and private meetings. And frankly, the answers we've gotten back have been not particularly satisfying. There's a lot of work to do going forward. I think this resolution actually does a good job laying out what some of those steps are, including the racial equity toolkit. I want to highlight what that racial equity toolkit is. It's not a simple exercise in checking a box and moving on and producing a document. It is an exercise in working with community to understand the impacts, not because we as government know what the impacts are, but because we have a conversation with community to understand what those are and we address those. That is a very important process, and to be meaningful, it's got to influence the outcome. I believe the language in this resolution leaves room for that to happen. I came into this meeting prepared to vote yes for this resolution because there's been good work done on it. But what's become apparent to me is despite a number of amendments that folks worked on over the weekend and this morning, the community has not had time to see those, to digest those, to talk to us about that, to give us input on it. I. I think there are productive conversations that can be had with the community. In fact, if we're going to be successful on doing a racial equity toolkit, we need many of you engaged in that process and we have some work to do on our end to build that trust, to have that conversation when we introduce a resolution and vote on it the same day. I do support that, but I weigh that versus what the urgency of that resolution is, but versus the drawbacks of that. And based on what I'm hearing today, I know the community has serious concerns, and I would like to give the community more time to see that. When I look through this resolution, there is nothing in here that's that rises to the level of urgency to move forward. Everything the good parts of this resolution don't require the resolution being passed to move forward. And frankly, I would hope that the city, regardless of this resolution, can start work on a racial equity tool kit today . I hope that we can. I. I hope that we can do the work called out to look at the design elements and figure out other ways to reduce the costs. None of that requires this resolution to happen. And so I would actually like to make a motion to table this resolution until September 12th, the meeting after the second meeting after we come back from recess.
Speaker 8: For before we. Okay.
Speaker 7: Before.
Speaker 0: So I think you used the term table, but I think we mean a motion to.
Speaker 13: Hold motion the whole thing.
Speaker 0: So before we proceed that online, why don't we shy that? Why don't we have some discussion first and see? Some of my colleagues would like to. I didn't hear it in the form of a form of motion yet. So would you like to make the motion?
Speaker 13: Yes, I would like to make a motion to hold this resolution until September 12th.
Speaker 0: Okay. 0303. We? Is there a second to hold to? We got about 100 seconds, but these are the seconds that count. Is there motion? Is there a second? I would like to hold the emotional hold till September 12th.
Speaker 8: Made up a few.
Speaker 0: So why don't we withdraw the motion just for timing? Have more. Have more conversations. So because. Because you took a chance here. And, you know, I like these things in the morning, by the way. So he raises an issue about it being time sensitive now. One could say you rip off the Band-Aid. I don't know if we've done a great job of explaining what's in the resolution, because, quite candidly, I don't know how anyone could support the precinct in its current state, quite candidly. I mean, even if you are fighting passionately for Black Lives Matter or you are a fiscal conservative on the far right that doesn't even care about Black Lives Matter, we have a lot of challenges with this this capital project. I think we all can agree on that. So. So I think one of the issues you raised about is a time sensitive. And so, again, this motion, this resolution, I don't think endorses the structure as it is. And so maybe so, so maybe someone could speak to. I think what's most important is people to understand what's in the resolution. There's language in there. And Catherine, I think you did a good job. There's language know that makes it clear. It's not it's not an endorsed project. It says very clearly in the resolution that we are as far as it's cost it, we're waiting for feedback based on the race and social justice toolkit and that you're asking for other cost updates. So I don't see this as an endorsement of the 149 price tag and surely not the 160 price tag, but maybe someone could speak to what we're endorsing. We're not endorsing through the resolution.
Speaker 2: I need to communicate that here.
Speaker 0: Would you like to.
Speaker 2: I, i, i, i just I spent about 10 minutes going through each of the components of the resolution. I believe that this resolution does does not endorse the 149. I think it creates a a framework by which we direct the department to look for additional cost savings, which is what I heard community wanted it also. It also provides it also provides it also provides for a path forward and a plan, a very concrete plan on performing the racial equity toolkit. And I think that those are important. I think those are important components of the work that we are trying to accomplish here. And the budgetary decisions related to the appropriations related to the ultimate cost of this project will be done in my mind once we have the value of all of this information in the course of the in the course of the budget process. So that is that is why we are not indicating or providing or endorsing a number is because that number has to be defined by the information we are directing efforts to get.
Speaker 0: Thank you. But any other? I was talking to Councilmember O'Brien. I don't disagree with what you said. In fact, I agree with what you said. But Councilmember O'Brien, if you would like to make the motion, I would second it to further the conversation. Yeah.
Speaker 8: I will move to.
Speaker 0: I will move to.
Speaker 13: Hold this resolution until September 2nd, September.
Speaker 0: 12th, and our second that so when. One thing that has occurred to me is that I know almost every council member, but in particular council members Herbold and Burgess and Gonzalez and Juarez have worked feverishly since Thursday and Friday and Saturday and Sunday trying to come up with a resolution that works. And I think we are hoping to get celebration on this resolution. And this is not exactly a celebration. And so I do question the wisdom of saying let's pass it and then sell it versus sell it and then work with the community. I think, you know, in how long this.
Speaker 8: How long this part.
Speaker 0: That that a lot of the public comment that I hear, I think are heartfelt and accurate about are we listening to what's happening in this country with, you know, you don't have to hammer me with Black Lives Matter. No, you don't. You don't have to. My three kids are black. I'm black. My wife is black. You do not have to tell me that black lives matter. I've spent a lifetime for black people. I think we need to tell you because I'm.
Speaker 7: So, so.
Speaker 0: So as we speak, as we speak, as we speak about this, I think it's very important what's happening in this country. This shadow could lift all boats. I mean, we have an opportunity here. We have an opportunity here. So I just would suggest possibly we could take a little time and explain it and maybe even tweak it and come back for a couple of weeks. But that's just that's just where I am on this. But I'll certainly defer to my colleagues. I think that there's there's people that my have there there are people that whose comments I routinely ignore because they don't have the credibility I like. But there are a lot of credible folks out there. So I'd like to hear from you. And if not, I'll just call on the motion to hold. I'll call. Catch my words if you want to speak. Thank you. Show some respect, sir, as I try to sharpen cuts. Final words.
Speaker 3: I'm just so I'm clear as. Because, you know, I just got elected. I've been on this job nine or ten months. So just to be clear, please be respectful because I wasn't raised the way you were, apparently were raised. I was raised.
Speaker 8: In Indian Country.
Speaker 3: I was raised for respect.
Speaker 0: Please. Respect. Please. Respect. Please.
Speaker 3: Please have respect.
Speaker 0: Please proceed. Please proceed.
Speaker 7: Folks, I want to say that I.
Speaker 13: You know, I'm with you all and I want to I want a chance for my colleagues to express themselves. And I know this is tense and I know we have different opinions and there's space for that.
Speaker 7: But if folks would please, I'd ask folks to.
Speaker 13: Please just just give us a few minutes to have a dialog so I can hear their points and they can hear our points. Okay.
Speaker 3: What I'm saying is this. I have listened to you. I've lived this life. I understand. Please, just let me talk. Thank you. So I was raised to listen, to try to understand and to try to do the right thing. And I think one thing that I want to point out here is I respect everybody who I sit with today. We've all worked very hard. We've met with groups. We've met with communities. We've met with the Chief O'Toole, FARC. I mean, you name it. So I just want to point something out. On August 17th, this council passed a law, and in that law it said 160 million. I wasn't here then for a police station right here. The vote was 8 to 0 five. Of those people that voted yes are on city council today. And before we got to that vote, we had 11 other votes ahead of that. So this is my job here. My job here isn't to do my job and to be called names. I've worked too hard in my life to get where I'm at. And so has Councilmember Gonzalez. My job here today is to look at something that a former don't flip me off. My job here today.
Speaker 7: As you know, out.
Speaker 3: Here in my job here today, is to do my job. And our job was to look at this number and bring it down and bring it down and bring it down. I wasn't there. Many of us were not here when this was passed for $160 million on August 17th, 2015. Now, I just want to again go back and reframe the issue. Do I believe what it means? It has to do with public safety. Every district in this city has a police station. Every district in this city has a police station. This police station isn't a District five issue. It's not even a district for six. It's about three communities with well over 300,000 people. Well. Five hospitals, two shopping malls. We have over 39 schools. Northgate alone has well over 2000 employees. North Sale College has 15,000 students. I won't go through all the stats of all of this, but I do know as light rail coming in in 2021 that we are looking at upswing in density, transit oriented housing and transit or development. I also know that if we're looking at 130th Street Station, we are looking at more density. My concern is this when I've read everything is that we were looking at the replacement of this facility for a 50 year life expectancy to accommodate population growth and associated public safety needs in regards to transportation, housing and social services. 40% of the population population lives north of the ship canal. I never thought that this was something about against anybody. I thought it was about doing my job and not sacrificing political correctness or political expediency for my career.
Speaker 8: I mean, I. I.
Speaker 3: Can I finish? So.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: May I finish? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. My main concern is that we deliver a brick and mortar building that fits a price tag that we can live with, that we can justify essential governmental function to serve and deliver an essential governmental service that is public safety for everybody. And that is my goal. I'm not sure you can.
Speaker 8: Extend that down.
Speaker 3: So anyway, with that, I just want you to know that I heard you loud and clear. I'll continue to represent this city. And I just want people here to know that all of us up here who are elected, we all work together and we all try really hard to do the right thing. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So right now, we have a, uh, excuse me. Excuse me. We have a motion to hold till September 12th. It's been moved to second. And all those in favor of the motion to hold to the 12th vote. I. I all those polls vote nay.
Speaker 13: You know.
Speaker 0: They sort of motion the motion fails to hold.
Speaker 8: We now we now have a well, having.
Speaker 0: A a resolution and a resolution in front of us that is ready to be voted on. Any further comments at any of my colleagues like to make before I call on a vote? Councilmember Burgess, you have the other floor, sir.
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Harrell. Thank you. The the new facility that we're talking about here is more than just a replacement of the existing north precinct. It also includes an urgently needed new training center, which is a key component of the city's continuing path toward compliance with the federal court consent decree, in fact. Councilmember Gonzalez, just before this meeting and the first part of our meeting was up and in federal court listening to Judge Robert give us further direction as to how we should come into compliance with that consent decree over the past year.
Speaker 0: So I'm here is to rely rely on the fact that you could hear me.
Speaker 7: Where you can see the comments made by.
Speaker 4: Over a third of the new building will be used for police training, including seven classrooms and simulation areas, plus offices for training staff. This training is essential to essential reform of the police in Seattle. We're investing tens of millions of dollars in police reform separate from this facility. For example, we underwrite the cost of the federal court monitoring team. We're paying for thousands of court mandated training hours. We're adding additional front line supervisors. We're investing in new data collection and analysis capabilities. These are investments that are worth every single dollar. And so is this new facility in North Seattle. Our police officers work every day to protect the city, and they deserve a building that is not 65% overcrowded. They deserve the highest quality training that will help us continually improve, improve policing in Seattle. We set very high standards of excellence for our police officers. We hold officers accountable because we expect professional, fair and constitutional policing. The people of Seattle deserve the best from our police officers, and our police officers deserve the best from us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments from any of my colleagues, Councilmember Herbold?
Speaker 6: I have serious concerns about the proposed price of this precinct building. For this reason, I requested that the resolution not endorse the $149 million cost. I could not have voted in support of this resolution without that specific change. But the Council will vote in November on a budget, and that budget will include an endorsement of a particular price tag. So we clearly have work to do and we need.
Speaker 2: You to help.
Speaker 6: Us do that work. It's also it's also clear that we are at a point of crisis in policing in this country. We're well past that point, in fact. Again, I'm voting.
Speaker 9: For this resolution.
Speaker 7: To hear.
Speaker 0: You ask to hear from the council members. You wanted to know here where they are. Let's hear them out, please. Thank you, Councilmember. Well.
Speaker 6: Again, I'm voting for this resolution because it does not endorse a budget costs and commits the city to using the racial equity toolkit and working with communities of color disproportionately impacted by policing to help inform our decision in November on the appropriate project costs. What makes this building a bunker? To my knowledge, there is nothing that makes this building more bomb.
Speaker 2: Proof or or biblical proof than any of our other four.
Speaker 6: Precinct buildings.
Speaker 2: But I will learn more. Is it the size which is nearly two times larger.
Speaker 6: Than the South West Precinct? Is that what makes it a bunker? Because it's so.
Speaker 2: Large?
Speaker 8: In in considering the size of this facility.
Speaker 6: I think it's very important to recognize, as Councilmember Burgess did, that the training center in the proposed facility will fulfill an obligation identified by the Department of Justice.
Speaker 9: That the consent.
Speaker 6: Decree requires police officers to receive five times the amount of training than in the past.
Speaker 2: That. The training facility in this building.
Speaker 6: Will be used for training all SBT officers throughout the city, not only north precinct officers. I hope that we can find a way.
Speaker 2: To turn what the community is telling us is a symbol of police brutality into a symbol of police accountability. I hope that those of you who are active on this issue.
Speaker 6: Will remain active as the Council considers legislation to reform the.
Speaker 10: Seattle Police.
Speaker 6: Accountability System, as.
Speaker 9: Well.
Speaker 6: As the decision making around the cost of the North Precinct.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Herbert SB Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 7: Regarding you folks. So you know.
Speaker 13: Where I'm going, I'm going to vote.
Speaker 7: You're going to sell the police by your threes and you're going to police.
Speaker 8: The film as well. It shows you that your decision was you with you. Who pays your taxes? Who? Alexis.
Speaker 7: So. So can I. To bipolar.
Speaker 13: I'd like to address my colleagues.
Speaker 0: Let's finish the hearing, please. Let's finish here. All right, let's finish the hearing, please. Councilmember O'Brien. Yeah?
Speaker 1: I'm going to start talking, and I.
Speaker 13: This resolution lays out some steps. Some things are good things in here. I'm going to be voting no on the resolution, but I want folks to understand that regardless of this passing or failing, this is a letter, a statement of intent by this council. The real work to be done is over the course of the budget, in the coming months and to get the outcome you all want and I want. We need to get a majority of the people sitting up here next to me to understand that. And we're going to have to do some work to work together to get there. And I'm going to do my part because I believe that the city can do a much better job in engaging our community and spending and prioritizing our resources. But having my vote alone is not going to get you the outcome you want. I want to respond. I want to respond to the comments. I was one of the council members who voted for the budget last year. The budget last year included the capital line items, including $160 million for the police precinct. That was something that things have changed since then. And I just want to be clear that $160 million today, in light of the movement about Black Lives Matter that's happening around this country. I mean, the purpose of movements, what the movement means to me is it's calling on us to reexamine our assumptions. And the assumptions that I went into that last year are different today, that they're different today. BLACK And I don't think I'm going to I don't think this is a I want to be clear and tell my colleagues, I don't think this is a bad resolution. I think this is a good resolution. But I'm going to be voting no because the we haven't taken the time necessary. And I haven't heard a compelling reason why we need to vote on this today.
Speaker 0: Hold it down. Council Member Johnson You have the floor, sir.
Speaker 12: Just, just a couple of months. Council President Erm there's two ways that we can save money on this police precinct, but we have one way, which is through the Policy Committee, through the Racial Equity Toolkit, and the second is through homeserve.
Speaker 8: So I'm going to have to an answer to. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No. Okay, we got it.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson, you have the floor, sir.
Speaker 12: So I want to echo the statements of Councilmember Herbold. I think when we had seen an original copy of this resolution included a cap at 149. I've heard from constituents, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, who have said that they think that that number is too high, and if that number had stayed in, I would have been like Councilmember Herbold, an opponent of the resolution. I want to say that there's two ways that we can really save money on the cost of this precinct. One is through the racial equity toolkit work, and the second is through independent cost evaluation. So I want to say thank you to Councilmember Gonzales for working with me to make sure that the third party validators are working with the council to make sure that we find ways to save money for this precinct. I want us to be able to spend these resources on other critical projects in the community that I think are desperately needed in the North End. And as Councilmember Herbold said, I think that the real discussion here is as we move forward into the budgeting process, I'm looking forward to continuing to do work with folks to keep bringing those costs down and making sure that we get to a number that's reasonable.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Any other comments?
Speaker 2: I was just going to.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Was just going to add on that. I mean, I think that's exactly what the resolution is, is framing up, is allowing us the space to have a conversation over the next several months, in fact, towards trying to find a sensible resolution and a reasonable pathway of of moving forward with the north precinct.
Speaker 0: Thank you to the vote. Okay. So if I don't hear any further comments, those in favor of adopting resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. No. The motion carries the resolutions adopted and the chair was silent. Is there any further business to come before the council that we will stand adjourned. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to Council direction on budget and other matters related to the North Precinct capital project (A1PS107). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CF 314315 | Speaker 0: All right. Report of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. Please read the report.
Speaker 1: The report of the Planning Leninism Zoning Committee Agenda Item three Credit File 314 315. Application of 1511 Dexter Limited Partnership for approval of a resume of 16,234 square feet of property located at 1511 Dexter Avenue, north from neighborhood commercial three with a 40 foot height limit to neighborhood commercial three with a 65 foot height limit. The committee recommends that the full council grant the application.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Council President. This particular piece of property is a bellwether housing property. They've come to us and asked for a reason to neighborhood commercial 65 to build 45 units of affordable housing at folks earning between 30 and 50% of own median income. 26 units of affordable housing earning up to 60% of the area median income, so a total of 71 new affordable housing units. The corner of Dexter and Gayla Street, though they've asked for 65 feet, is part of this contract. Reason the building is only going to be built to 55. He hired to preserve some views and setbacks with unanimous support and approval from their neighbors and the committee. I proudly bring this thing this this application grant forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. I'm sorry to clarify all those in favor of the clerk file vote. I I'm sorry. Okay. So we just have to file it.
Speaker 7: Earnings. Please bear with us. There's some legal language that we definitely need to read in order to approve the court file.
Speaker 0: Okay. She throws the favor of granting the petition. Please vote. I find those oppose vote no. The motion carries the petitions. Granted, the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and decisions of the City Council. Next agenda item. Police Exigent item, please.
Speaker 1: Agenda item four. Councilmember Joe Council Bill 118 750 relating to the planning and zoning amending Chapter 23.32, the Seattle Municipal Code at page 90 of the official land use map tourism property located at 1511 Dexter Avenue North from neighborhood commercial three Dash 42 Neighborhood Commercial three, dash 65 and accepting a property use and development agreement as condition of rezoning approval, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson So.
Speaker 7: Again, this is about the same property, the council bill in front of us and that's the reason granted by the clerk filed by amending the official land use map and accepts the property use and development agreement, which requires the applicant to adhere to the conditions of the reason. Since the committee meeting we've received the executed property use development agreement. So I move the council substitute exhibit B executed property use and development agreement for the UN executed version included in the bill.
Speaker 0: Their second. All those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's motion to amend the Council bill by the substitution vote i. I opposed vote no. The ayes have it. Please proceed. Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 7: I believe we now just have the underlying bill in front of us. And I have no further remarks to make. Council President.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Please call the roll call on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold. High Johnson. Maurice O'Brien. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next gen item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item five Constable 118 675 relating to planning and zoning amending the official land use map to rezone land within the Lake City Urban Village and along Lake City Way and many subsection 23.40 78.005. C of the code to remove certain restrictions on street level, street facing residential uses and amending section 23.47 8.009 to adopt development standards | Clerk File (CF) | Application of 1511 Dexter Limited Partnership for approval of a rezone 16,234 square feet of property located 1511 Dexter Ave North from Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 40 foot height limit (NC3-40) to Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 65 foot height limit (NC3-65). (Project No. 3015682, Type IV) | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CB 118675 | Speaker 1: Agenda item five Constable 118 675 relating to planning and zoning amending the official land use map to rezone land within the Lake City Urban Village and along Lake City Way and many subsection 23.40 78.005. C of the code to remove certain restrictions on street level, street facing residential uses and amending section 23.47 8.009 to adopt development standards for certain property along Lake City, where the committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President So this council bill in front of us reflects several years of outreach by the Office of Planning and Community Development in the Lake City community. It doesn't change any building heights in Lake City, but what it does is it promotes some opportunities for us to create a more pedestrian friendly street along Lake City and in the Lake City Neighborhood Business District, Civic Core. The zoning change, as we described, is as capacity neutral, and we had some really good discussions about this in committee. The bill effectively expands the pedestrian designation within the urban village, which allows for us to change some of the way that the building meets the street. Does things like prohibit commercial development from having parking lots in front of the building and requires them to be built behind the building, for example. The bill would also effectively change some design standards for large lots, so it would ask us to do some setbacks on large lots over 40,000 feet. We had a request from the community to reduce some of the setbacks in those large lots from 45 feet down to 35 feet. And that amendment was passed out of committee. And these, along with other design standards that we're adopting today, we think are going to really result in a community that continues to, as they build in building new buildings, be a more pedestrian, friendly, walkable neighborhood that they aspire to be. And that concludes my remarks. I believe Councilmember Wise has some things you would like to achieve.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson comes from a worse.
Speaker 3: Well, I know that you're not all excited about zoning changes, but some of us really are. I know, Robin. I'm excited. I'm excited to vote for the zoning changes today. Lake City is a vibrant, growing community and certainly benefit from the mandatory housing affordability framework that will be coming from this council as well. The changes in this legislation will create development guidelines and pedestrian designations to ensure new development meets the needs of the community that's becoming dense and needs to increase walkability and access. I want to thank Councilmember Johnson for his leadership on this legislation. I also want to thank Katie Sheehy from the Office of Planning and Community Development, who has spent years working with the neighbors in Lake City to bring these recommendations forward. And most importantly, I want to thank all the community members who dedicate their time and their energy and told their stories and came downtown to provide public comment . Without their hard work and concern for their neighborhood. A lot of these changes would not be happening today. So with that, I'm happy to vote in support of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Worse. Any further comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez. I Herbold II. Johnson, Suarez, I. O'Brien, President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Official Land Use Map (Chapter 23.32) to rezone land within the Lake City Urban Village and along Lake City Way; amending subsection 23.47A.005.C of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove certain restrictions on street-level street-facing residential uses; and amending Section 23.47A.009 to adopt development standards for certain properties along Lake City Way. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_Res 31682 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda item six Resolution 316 882 Identify and propose comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption 2017 and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission Review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President So each year, community members and departments come to the city and ask us to study amendments to a comprehensive plan process. That's commonly called the darkening process. When the Council takes action and asks the Department to study these items to be included in that potential discussion for the next comprehensive plan, we pass a resolution. This year. We receive 14 applications for the darkening process. We move four of those applications for for further study. And in addition, during the. Discussion. We discussed two changes in addition to those. For one of those changes was an amendment offered by Councilmember O'Brien to have the Planning Commission and staff of the Office of Planning Community Development consider health impacts of residential land uses adjacent to transit, freight corridors, highways, industrial lands, etc.. And then secondly, I offered an amendment which will give a little more specific direction to the Industrial Lands Task Force being convened by the mayor, asking them to evaluate a couple of parcels that we chose not to docket to consider new types of industrial uses. So again, the outcome of today's resolution, should it be adopted, is that the planning staff will then spend the next year studying these items and come back to us with the recommendation about whether or not to include them in next year's comprehensive plan process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Johnson, any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote. I. All right. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Next report, please. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION identifying proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2017; and requesting that the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission review and make recommendations about the proposed amendments. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CB 118731 | Speaker 1: The Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item seven Accountable 118 731 Relating to Historic Preservation, imposing controls upon the Theodora Landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 zero Code, and adding it to the table of historic landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Ms.. Mr. Codes Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is. Imposing controls on the Theodora, which is an apartment building in northeast Seattle. It was designated as a historic landmark in October of 2014. The ordinance, if adopted, imposes controls upon this building as specified by the Landmarks Preservation Board. This means that any changes to the site, the building exterior and portions of the interior require review and approval of the Landmarks Board. The ordinance details the approval process moving forward for both the Landmarks Board and the owner of the building. And the committee recommends this ordinance be adopted.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Just want to say this building is in my neck of the woods, just up the street, just beyond 65th and 35th northeast. And one of the things that I'm I got a chance to understand better in committee is that when we take these kinds of actions, it becomes part of the inspection process. So when inspectors come out to the property to take a look at the development, these protections are outlined in their form. So when they go through their checklist, these are things that they're looking for as well. So we're doing a good job today of making sure that as we convert historic buildings to new uses, that we're doing a good job of preserving them and that the inspection process holds up that standard as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Burgess, Gonzalez, I Herbold II Johnson, Maurice O'Brien, President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair was signing agenda item number eight. And please read the short title, will you please? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon The Theodora, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CF 314304 | Speaker 0: Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution that is adopted and the chair will sign it. Next report, please.
Speaker 1: The report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item 12 Clerk filed 314304 petition of Swedish Health Services for the vacation of the Alien BLOCK 95 Teri Second Edition to the City of Seattle. The committee recommends the full council grant the application as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So this is part of the expansion for Swedish Hospital. This plant on First Hill, it's part of the plans that were included in the major institution master plan, which came to the council recently. The alley in question is and it goes to the property bordered by between Columbia and Cherry and Miner and Boren. The Swedish hospital did a great job, in my view, of working with the local community to determine a set of public benefits that both met the local communities needs and I think the needs of more broadly of the city of Seattle. It's a good example of public benefits provided offsite, which is also more feasible because of Swedish the expanse of the campus. A couple examples of the projects that are included in the public benefit. You can see them all if you go into the documents. One is completing the what's called the first hill mile. This is a kind of walking circuit that the neighborhood has identified as part of their neighborhood plans. It's basically what Swedish would be doing would be upgrading the sidewalks, signage, curb cuts, those types of things for street frontages both adjacent to this project, but also stretches beyond Swedish Hospital into the neighborhood to make a nice one mile loop that people could walk on in the neighborhood. And also folks that are staying in Swedish or recovering it Swedish could use. There's also public art locations and access points on the project. I'm also wanted to say that I'm excited to be supporting Swedish for variety of reasons, including the fact that my kids were born there. And but they've also done a lot of great work to show their continued commitment to our community, including recently updating their charity care program, which serves as a national model for really doing work the way a nonprofit hospital should be doing. I also just want to say that during the comments at the committee, we had representatives of the first Hill neighborhood come in, speak directly to how excited they are for the public benefit that's coming. And so it's it's great when you have kind of community unanimity around a process like this. It makes our job easier. I will be happy to support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bryan, any further comments or questions? Those in favor of granting the petition as to please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the petition is granted as condition and the chair will sign the conditions of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of Swedish Health Services for the vacation of the alley in Block 95, Terry’s Second Addition to the City of Seattle. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CB 118732 | Speaker 0: Thank you. And Brian, any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries the resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item and you can read the short version.
Speaker 1: Agenda 14 Council Bill 118 732 Relating to City Streets. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 2: Councilmember O'Brien So this bill, well, it touches on a lot of street names throughout the city of Seattle. It's mostly clean up. The city has done some work to go back and review the naming of various streets, mostly for consistency with what is already in practice on the ground in our communities to make sure that our records line up for our first responders. So an example, kind of a hypothetical example is there are streets that are already signed a certain way that the community refers to them in a certain way. And yet our official records don't reflect that. So when someone were to call in an emergency at a certain address, first responders may have some confusion as to where that is. So this just for the most part, we we're bring our official records into alignment with signage that's already in place in many places and certainly common out there. There are a couple of places also where there are cleanups of roads. An example would be Broad Street, which is largely been vacated as the as we've redone the kind of Mercer area connecting I-5 to Seattle Center. But there's a little partial block segment of Broad Street that's left, but there's that since that is now the only little section of Broad Street that will be renamed. I forget what it's going to connect to, but with an adjacent street to make that clear, this this bill will require a handful of folks, I believe, less than a dozen to have to formally change their address because of the new street name. Those folks have all been notified to be aware of that and will have time to make those changes.
Speaker 3: Are they businesses?
Speaker 0: Customer Baker.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Are those businesses or residents?
Speaker 2: That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 3: It's a lot more difficult for businesses, obviously.
Speaker 2: So my understanding is they've done multiple steps of outreach to folks in that. I haven't heard any concerns to the process of anyone saying that this is too burdensome on them, not to say that that is an inclusive group, but I know that we asked the question and they have done try to be proactive in making sure folks are aware of the changes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw, Burgess. Gonzalez, Purple Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. Hi, Sowhat. Excuse me. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 1: And favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next agenda item, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City streets; changing the name of Broad Street between 9th Avenue N and Westlake Avenue N to Roy Street, of Warren Place between Warren Avenue N and its east terminus to Warren Place N, of S Della Street between 27th Avenue S and Martin Luther King Jr. Way S to S Walden Street, of Cloverdale Place S between Rainier Avenue S and Seward Avenue S to S Cloverdale Place, of NW 35th Street between 1st Avenue NW and NW Canal Street to NW Canal Street, of 1st Avenue NW between the south margin of N Canal Street and N 35th Street to N Canal Street, of a lower roadway at the east of the present existing bridge on Eastlake Avenue NE between its south terminus at the shoreline and the south margin of NE Pacific Street to Eastlake Place NE, of a lower roadway at the east of the present existing bridge on Eastlake Avenue NE between the north margin of NE Pacific Street and the south margin of NE 40th Street to Eastlake Place NE; correcting and confirming the name and location of NW 114th Street between NW Carkeek Park Road and NW 116th Street as NW 114th Street; naming th | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08082016_CB 118725 | Speaker 1: The report of the Parks, Datacenter, Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 118 725 relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute for and on behalf of the city. An amendment to the existing Seacrest Boathouse Concession Agreement with Marin Nation, LLC, originally authorized by Ordinance 12411 to authorize and superintend to execute feature memos relating to concession fees, as the superintendent determines to be in the best interest of the city in ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Wirth.
Speaker 3: Thank you. As you know, Mayor Nation is a fantastic local business that has been growing since 2009. Owners Camila and Ross dreamed up a delicious fusion of Hawaiian and Korean cuisine. Very nation, started with a mobile food truck and now they have four locations. In 2013, Muir Nation entered into a concession agreement with the Department of Parks and Recreation to lease the Seacrest boathouse at the Seacrest very dock. Very nation has put $200,000 of improvements into the boathouse. This led to this legislation is an update to their lease agreement to make their payments to the Department of Parks and Recreation consistent with other market rate partnerships. It would require imagination to pay $32 per square foot plus 2% of their gross receipts. This will increase consistency for imagination so they can continue to have successful a successful business and partnership with Parks and Recreation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Casper. In words, any further comments or questions? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, it's no surprise that the rate that they were paying greatly outstripped their expectations. It's an incredibly popular and delicious restaurant. I do have a question about the looking at the fiscal note. It looks like the changes that we are voting on today will go back to 2013. The fee payment a change change will be effective. 22nd October 2013. And I don't need to know this now if you don't know the information off the top of your head when you're looking at the fiscal note, it shows an impact of $90,000 in 2016 and 2017. And I believe that's the revenue that they are anticipating to receive moving forward under this new rate. My question is, is are we giving are we giving them a refund for for fees paid over and above what they're required? And and if so, I'd be interested to know a little bit more about that.
Speaker 3: I believe we are not giving them a refund. If I remember correctly.
Speaker 0: I would sort of chime in and say that I was at the committee discussion when the. When the whole issue has come up. But that issue of a refund did not come up. And it was certainly my understanding when I voted on it to support the committee that it was moving forward. It was prospective, not retrospective. But currently there's a fiscal note that seems inconsistent with that company.
Speaker 3: And both owners were there. Okay. Well, we can check out afterwards.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any further comments or questions? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: By John.
Speaker 6: Burgess.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brian. President Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I believe that comes to the end of our agenda. And is there any further business to come before the council? Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 5: Now we're following the rules. Thank you so much. As I mentioned in council briefing this morning, I am asking to be excused for this Monday, August 15th, in order to be able to, as chair of the Safe Communities Committee, to be able to attend a very important hearing that will occur in Judge Roberta's court related to the city's ongoing compliance with the consent decree.
Speaker 0: Fails the lack of a second. Is there any further? No.
Speaker 6: Second motion.
Speaker 0: Their second. It's been moved. And secondly, that Councilman Gosar be excused on August 15th to attend this very important hearing. All those in favor say I. I opposed say no. She's representing us. Thank you very much. Any further business to come?
Speaker 5: And I'm hoping to be able to make it back before the end of end of council for council. But wanted to exercise some caution there.
Speaker 0: Very good. You know that. No further business. Everyone, have a great day and we'll stand adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute for and on behalf of the City an amendment to the existing Seacrest Boathouse Concession Agreement with Marination LLC, originally authorized by Ordinance 124112; authorizing the Superintendent to execute future amendments relating to concession fees as the Superintendent determines to be in the best interest of the City; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08012016_Res 31685 | Speaker 6: The report. The Full Council agenda items one through three Resolution three 165 of intention to establish a ballot parking and business improvement area and fix a date and place for hearing thereon. Resolution 316 86 to initiate a ballot parking and Business Improvement Area Resolution 316 87, declaring the intention the City Council to hold a public hearing relating to changing the assessment rates for the West Seattle Junction Parking and Business Improvement Area.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. These are three procedural resolutions that allow the city council to consider a request to establish the Ballard Business Improvement Area and to modify the rates that are charged for the existing West Seattle junction by a resolution 31686 initiates the process for considering and establishing the ballot via Resolution 31685 since September seven, 2016 is the hearing date for the proposed ballot BIA and Resolution 31687 sets September seven as the hearing date for changes to the assessment rate for the existing West Seattle junction. By, as you know, colleagues bills are funding mechanisms that allow members to assess themselves and then provide enhanced services to their neighborhood. We have nine bars in the city today.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Burgess. Are there any further comments or questions? We'll take these individually, each resolution individually. I move to adopt resolution 31685.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: Those in favor of adopting the Resolution 31685 vote i, i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that resolution is adopted that the chair will sign it and move to adopt resolution 31686.
Speaker 5: I can count.
Speaker 0: Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Vote I II. Excuse me. Those opposed vote no motion carries and that resolution is adopted. I move to adopt resolution 31687 Second those in favor adopting the resolution, please vote i i those oppose vote no. The motion carries and that resolution is adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. Support of the Civil Rights, Utilities and Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please read the report. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION of intention to establish a Ballard Parking and Business Improvement Area and fix a date and place for a hearing thereon. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08012016_CB 118746 | Speaker 0: The motion carries and that resolution is adopted. Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. Support of the Civil Rights, Utilities and Economic Development and Arts Committee. Please read the report.
Speaker 6: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item four of Accountable 118 746 Relating to Human Rights and adding a new Chapter 14.21 to the Shadow Minister Code to prohibit the practice of conversion therapy on minors. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: I'll turn to Councilmember Herbold and follow your lead on how this is presented.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I would like to allow Councilmember Gonzales to make remarks about this bill, since she is the prime sponsor and initiator of this effort.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzalez, thank you.
Speaker 6: And before I get into the substance of the bill and move for its adoption, I have one small technical amendment that needs to be made to this to the version that passed out of committee last week. So I am going to move to amend the Council Bill 118746 Section one Seattle Municipal Code 14.2 1.050. B by deleting the word me and adding ciao before the director.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: Is there saying it. Second OC has been moved and second to make the amendment as council members. Gonzales described all those in favor of the amendment vote i. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we now have an amended piece of legislation. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Imagine yourself as a child or a teenager growing up, coming to realize who you are as it relates to your sexual orientation or gender identity. Now imagine that a guardian sends you to a therapist who intends to cure you because they think you should identify as someone you are not. They tell you you're not normal, but you have a disease or mentally ill and that you need to change who you are. Sadly, occurrences like this are not rare, and this psychological manipulation is what is commonly referred to as conversion therapy and is a largely discredited practice that claims to use therapeutic tools to supposedly cure people of their same sex attractions or non-conforming conforming gender identity. Nationally, one in three LGBTQ youth may experience some form of conversion therapy upon coming out, and there is no reason to believe that Seattle is an outlier in this regard. Let me affirm a simple truth that I've been stating over the past week about this particular legislation, and that is that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer or transgender is not an illness, nor is it something that needs a cure. Conversion therapy is a harmful practice that needs to end and cannot be allowed to grab a foothold in Seattle or anywhere else. Today, I'm thrilled to move for the adoption of Council Bill 118746 as amended, which would ban so-called conversion therapy for minors in Seattle by prohibiting licensed mental health providers from practicing conversion therapy on minor children . The legislation would prohibit licensed providers from practicing conversion therapy on children with a $500 fine for the first violation and up to $1,000 for any subsequent violations. Advertising for conversion therapy would also be prohibited, and our Seattle Office for Civil Rights would be responsible for enforcement of the law, but also for ensuring the community outreach that is necessary and appropriate to educate both potential victims of their rights, but also to advise licensed mental health professionals within the city of Seattle about their obligations under this new ordinance. Dozens of organizations have voiced opposition to the practice of conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Child Adolescent Psychiatry. And the list goes on. If adopted by the full council today, Seattle will join Cincinnati and Miami Beach as the third city to ban gay conversion therapy. Washington, D.C., California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey have already enacted statewide prohibitions. I believe that it's time that Seattle was added to this list. There's a few thank you's and acknowledgments I'd like to make. In conclusion, first, I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for allowing me the space on her agenda and in the credit committee to have this discussion and to advance this piece of legislation. Thank you so much. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank my legislative aide, Corey Dahl, who's sitting right here in the back in the audience, who was instrumental in crafting the policy and working through some of the more complex issues, both in enforcement and in the substance of policy. Thank you, Corey. And last but certainly not least, I want to give a huge amount of credit and thanks to our local LGBTQ advocates, some of whom are here today. They approached me several months ago to ask me to develop a bill to prohibit conversion therapy in Seattle. And I readily agreed to what I believe is a common sense approach to to dealing with this particular issue. It really is because of their advocacy that we now have this piece of legislation in front of us. And I am thrilled to be able to call this the first piece of legislation that I've been able to introduce and hopefully get passed. And truly, at its core, I believe this bill affirms equity, compassion and understanding of our LGBTQ youth. And it also affirms that discredited practices as it relates to the identity of our LGBTQ youth children will not be tolerated in in the city of Seattle. So with that being said, I'd like to move for its adoption.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilor Herbold, did you have any remarks you'd like to make?
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to, first of all, say that this is an important statement on behalf of the city. Should the city choose or the council choose to pass it today, that any practice that requires somebody.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 6: Repudiate their very identity cannot be called therapy. And I'm very proud that our city is joining those who have decided to ban it. And I hope that this is something that we can with our Office of Intergovernmental Relations. Work to get passed by the state legislature as well. I did want to also lift up the fact that we had asked OCR Office of Civil Rights in committee last week to identify the costs associated with this bill. And they've they've provided some additional information about that cost associated with building community based partnerships. Bus ads, print ads and mailers and translation services, primarily for.
Speaker 1: The purposes of.
Speaker 6: Promoting the fact that this is now the law of Seattle. So I am happy to provide that detail if anybody wants it. But that was a sort of a t that t that we decided that we in an eye that we decided we needed to dot and cross.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for those words. Councilmember Suarez, I believe you have some words.
Speaker 1: I do. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Sarah Mays for her words about talking about queer children. Conversion therapy is the 20th century or 21st century version of what happened to my people, all in the name of assimilation to not be us. Except we had the government that took our children boarding school beatings, not allowed to speak our language, practice, our religion and our culture. We were forcibly taken from our families, our children. I am literally one generation removed from that horrific practice. So today I join you and I'm happy for you and your children. And what I hear. It breaks my heart. That we have to pass a law to recognize your humanity. So today, God bless you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cuts. That's true. Any other comments from any of my colleagues before we call for the vote? I learned one thing in this job most equipped way or had those wise words from all three of you. Thank you very much. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 2: Swan I beg your pardon? Burgess Gonzalez I heard Bob Johnson whereas I. O'Brien High President.
Speaker 0: Harrell High.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair was signed and let's give that an applause. He offered to take credit for it. By the way, thank you very much for your leadership, colleagues.
Speaker 6: All right, all right.
Speaker 1: All right. It's a.
Speaker 6: Community effort.
Speaker 0: All right. A report of the civil rights, utilities and economic development and. Item five I was just testing you your read on. Please read the next report, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to human rights; and adding a new Chapter 14.21 to the Seattle Municipal Code to prohibit the practice of conversion therapy on minors. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.