meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
SeattleCityCouncil_10232017_Res 31780 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the first agenda item.
Speaker 2: Three part of the full council. Agenda Item one Resolution 317 80 Setting the public hearing on the petition of the sale of foreign transportation for the vacation of portions of Broad Street, Eighth Avenue, North and Marshall Street in the area bounded by Mercer Street, Dexter Avenue, North Fourth Street and Ninth Avenue, North and South Lake Union area Seattle. According to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 Code and Clark 5314309.
Speaker 1: Of Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This sets the is the resolution to set a public hearing date for the certification of state property. This is the right away is in South Lake Union is between Dexter in ninth and Mercer in Valley Street. It's a site that most folks may recognize as the teardrop site. As I mentioned in a briefing today, this is a parcel that is owned by our staff. Pieces of it are general property, pieces of it are public right away. And the public hearing in the committee on December 5th will be part of the process to vacate that property so that it will be all general property for our state and essentially consolidate that block. The action today, again, is just a public announcement of when that public hearing will be.
Speaker 1: Thank very much. Are there any further comments at the moment here? Okay. I move to adopt resolution 31780. Okay. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution please vote i. I. Those opposed vote. No emotion carries. The resolution stopped. And Cheryl, sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Agenda Item two Appointment 790 Reappointment of David G. Jones as City Auditor for term from December 14, 2017 to December 13th, 2021. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of the Seattle Department of Transportation for the vacation of portions of Broad Street, 8th Avenue North, and Mercer Street in the area bounded by Mercer Street, Dexter Avenue North, Roy Street, and 9th Avenue North in the South Lake Union area of Seattle, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and Clerk File 314309. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_Res 31779 | Speaker 2: The the bill is signed and the chair will sign it the is passed. That's what I want to say. The bill's passed in the journal so please the read the report of the full council agenda item one the short title please.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Resolution 31779 from the City of Sale, Support of Immigration Immigrant Communities stating in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Speaker 2: McAllen Councilmember Gonzales for this one.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This resolution affirms the City of Seattle support of DOCA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act and clearly states that Dhaka beneficiaries and their families are here to stay. We do this primarily through the following ways, requiring that our Office of Intergovernmental Relations and our federal lobbying team prioritize the passage of a Clean Dream Act by Congress and that they do so swiftly. Opposing threats to withhold money from the city because of our sanctuary policies. Denouncing anti-immigrant. Show me your paper laws like the recent Texas Senate Bill four can, and by convening an inclusive stakeholder engagement process to help the city develop policies that preserve and protect our diverse communities. I want to reserve some comments for the end, but that's an initial description of the resolution. So I'd like to move for the adoption of the resolution to the extent I need a second.
Speaker 2: Also, can that any further comments from colleagues? I'm not seeing any. Why don't you continue, Councilmember Goodall? I'll send you close discussion.
Speaker 4: Great. I want to thank several different following groups and organizations for helping us with drafting the language of the resolution, and of course, thank them for their ongoing efforts to lead these efforts in making sure that we are advancing the rights of our immigrant communities, particularly as it relates to our youth who are undocumented. And those folks, our organizations are the Washington Dream Coalition. They're representatives from the Washington Dream Coalition here today, the Seattle Immigrant and Refugee Commission, One America and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. And I will also also want to thank the union for my office, who really helped draft this this resolution. And this is her. These are her 2/1 big resolutions out of the office. And she did a great job. And I just want to publicly acknowledge her for all of her tremendous efforts and work in drafting two outstanding resolutions and bringing community together to be able to celebrate in this way. DOCA, as we all know, is under threat right now. It is something that was won by the undocumented community as a result of young undocumented Americans in our community fighting like heck to lead the way to get us DOCA. And under this federal administration, we are now seeing that that is under threat and we will be relying on on these young leaders to be able to tell us what it is they need to hold them up and to make sure that they continue to be part of this country. And I just and to you all personally, I know some of you personally and have had a pleasure of of working with you and community. And I just want to give you from a personal note from myself, which is that I admire all of your courage every day to really stand up for who you are and for your values. And I hope to be able to work with you and support everything that you need to be able to continue in this fight. So thank you for everything that you're doing.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So this resolution has been moved and seconded. I'm not seeing any further comments. All those in favor please signify by saying I am right. And he opposed. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Please read the agenda item number two. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION affirming The City of Seattle’s support of immigrant communities; stating its support of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrival (DACA) program; recognizing the roots and community DACA recipients have built in the Seattle/King County region and beyond, and The City of Seattle’s commitment to an inclusive, welcoming City and advancing policies to protect vulnerable communities while denouncing national and federal policies and rhetoric targeting immigrants and immigrant communities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119093 | Speaker 2: And I opposed the resolution as adopted and the General Senate resolutions. Madam Clerk, item number three The short title, please.
Speaker 3: Agenda item three Council Bill 119093 relating to land use and zoning adopting excuse me, moratorium on the filing, acceptance and or processing of applications for establishing expansion or change of use for certain uses of parcels within commercial one. Excuse me. Introduce.
Speaker 2: I'm going to turn this one over to Councilmember Juarez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm very happy and proud to introduce Council Bill 119093. As you know, we shared this is regarding the urban village, the urban village strategy, in particular the Aurora Linton Springs, Aurora Village. As you heard some from public comment, this is 20 years in the works. And I want to thank those community members who have lived in those neighborhoods for well over two decades with their heart, with their commitment, the passion for their community. It's inspirational. It's been an honor working with you because I know we started this conversation well over a year ago. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage more housing and pedestrian friendly development in the C1, C2 and nc3 designations within the boundaries of Allof the goals of this legislation are consistent with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Act and Urban Village Neighborhood Plan, and the mandatory housing affordability citywide re zones, all of which have had community and council review over the last several years with more review to come in 2018. This legislation will disallow certain types of heavy commercial use being developed in the ALA boundaries. No businesses will be asked to leave or relocate as a result of this legislation. Any new businesses development, any new business development I'm sorry that has recently been permitted or is in the permitting process will still move forward when the new up zones go into effect. I believe that will be in 2018. These same heavy commercial uses, which I believe there are 17 of them, will no longer be in allowed in a live. So this is this is our effort to build a bridge into that next phase about how and what we do for the ALA of community development will still be allowed on those lots and we're hoping that this will encourage those owners if they plan to develop to do so by creating housing in pedestrian friendly commercial spaces. The ALA community has been welcoming to potential debt, to potential dense zoning changes and more pedestrian friendly development. The ALA of community has applied for and has been awarded a neighborhood street fund grant for art installations on Aurora and an only in Seattle grant from the Office of Economic Development to support the growth and stability of a stronger local business culture along Aurora. I know it may not seem like a lot to many people, but that one mile stretch on Aurora means a lot to the neighbors and the people that have lived in those communities for decades. I really want to thank the community members who brought this to my attention, who have continued to work with my office and to achieve the goals for their community, including Lee Anderson, Lee Burch, David Ozaki, Ryan de Raphael. I think I said that wrong. Just to name a few. Some of those people spoke up today. I did say wrong, didn't I? You're looking right at me. And that showed up today. You know, it's not often we get folks from the North End to come down. So I really appreciate that you came down to so we could hear you at public comment talk about these neighborhoods when we were doing all these plantings and the neighborhood plans and the urban village strategies. We also heard from folks in the last year and a half from Broadview, Bitter Lake, Holler, Lake, Lake City, way in North Cape. As you know, we have light rail coming in at Northgate. We're looking at a second stop at 130th and Bitter Lake. And so these neighborhoods are very dense now and they're growing very quickly. And we're working with the state legislator and my colleagues for more housing density in these neighborhoods. But I want to say that working with you guys has been a real pleasure. Sometimes this job is a bit difficult, but it's nice to work with a community that looks forward, that's realistic about what we can get done and truly cares about not only their community, but the city of Seattle. So I want to also say and thank my colleagues, particularly Councilmember Johnson, who's been great on all this wonky urban planning stuff. And I'm going to ask all my colleagues today for your support in voting yes to these changes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmembers. So I would move to pass Councilmember 119093 and it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion or comments colleagues seeing and I would ask the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Flores O'Brien. So what? Bagshaw Gonzalez. I Herbold Johnson.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 3: Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it, please. Oh, yes. Well deserved. Please read the agenda. Item number four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; adopting a moratorium on the filing, acceptance, or processing of applications for the establishment, expansion, or change of use for certain uses on parcels with a Commercial 1, Commercial 2, or Neighborhood Commercial 3 zoning designation within the Aurora-Licton Urban Village; declaring an emergency and establishing an immediate effective date; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119092 | Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it, please. Oh, yes. Well deserved. Please read the agenda. Item number four.
Speaker 3: Agenda and for accountable 11909 to authorize and director of finance administrative services and the director says you need to execute a license agreement with the Department of the Army for the city's continual use of an approximately 13,000 square foot warehouse facility at 1555 Alaskan way south for the operation of the Saint Martin, the waters shelter for homeless men over the age of 50 and ratifying, confirming certain prior acts.
Speaker 2: And I turn this one over to you, Councilmember Bagshaw Very good.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. And this comes out of now, Mayor Burgess. This committee, this particular bill, will authorize our director of Seattle Finance and Administrative Services to enter into a new license agreement with the Department of Army for approximately 13. Thousand square feet of federal warehouse space, an Alaskan way south. And the shelter has been used for over 30 years now for Saint Martins to poor as a shelter. It will continue being operated by Catholic Community Services. It is actually a license that will run through the end of July of 2018. So just next year we recommend approval of this bill as presented.
Speaker 2: Questions colleagues like I would move to pass countable 119092 moved and seconded. Seeing no further discussion, I'd ask the clerk to please call the roll in the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Marez I O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Hi. So on.
Speaker 3: Make sure Gonzales Herbold Johnson. Hi seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: I would ask the clerk to please read the report from the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee. Agenda Number five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or the Director’s designee to execute a license agreement with the Department of the Army for the City’s continued use of an approximately 13,000 square-foot warehouse facility at 1555 Alaskan Way South for the operation of the St. Martin de Porres shelter for homeless men over the age of 50, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119027 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item five Council Bill 1190 27 amended the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2016 through 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Annual Amendment Process Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: So this is the committee that I chair and once a year we adopt changes to the comprehensive plan. There was a couple of amendments that were discussed in committee. One was related to making some specific changes to the description of the Chinatown International District based on the community feedback that we'd heard through the Chinatown International District zoning changes. And the second was an amendment to parks and open space elements. Councilmember O'Brien, you spent a lot of time working on that parks and open space element, and I wanted to give you the chance to speak about it, if you like. But I'm not seeing you jump for a microphone. Okay. One of the other issues that was discussed, both a lot in committee and then also again today in public comment was the issue of future land use map amendment sizes. We did some robust work there and as you may have heard during public comments, chose not to bring forward an amendment that would make a specific change to a vigilante stamp in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. There was a consensus among the committee that that was a great project, a project that all of us on committee liked and appreciated, particularly their commitment to choosing to perform through our mandatory housing affordability program. But when we did the analysis about what sort of scope changes would be required for us to then make requisite size size changes to the future land use map, that that was a precedent that maybe that change was too small of a change for us to make and dig that deep down into the future land use map. So we neglected to bring that amendment forward, although that was a project that I think all of us supported and look forward to seeing. It's future development of I'm not overstepping my bounds, but I'm looking at my colleagues and I'm not seeing any significant objection. OC Any further discussion about the comprehensive plan. I'm not seeing any great boards and it's yours. So with that, I'd move to pass Council Bill 119027 for the discussion. Okay. And ask the court to please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Flores O'BRIEN All right. So what I John Gonzalez, purple Johnson high seven in favor not opposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd ask the court to please call to please read agenda item number six, the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending the Seattle Comprehensive Plan to incorporate changes proposed as part of the 2016-2017 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment process. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119057 | Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I'd ask the court to please call to please read agenda item number six, the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda item six Constable 1190 37 relating to land use and zoning. Modifying the Design Review Program, the committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. So this is another bill that came through the Planning Ladies and Zoning Committee. There's a couple of elements related to this that I thought it would be helpful for us to address. But first we've got a proposed substitute to put in front of us and a proposed amendment. So I'd rather we we take action on those two items before we have further discussion of the underlying bill. The proposed substitute is in front of you, and that substitute makes technical corrections that resulted in a couple of weeks between the committee discussion and here. So I'd move to substitute council bill 119057 as outlined in the proposed substitute. For the discussion on that came all those in favor of the proposed substitute. Please signify by saying i. I many opposed. Okay, let's move to the amendment and asks ask you Council member Herbold to speak to the amendment that we've worked up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I move Amendment one to Cancer Bill 11 9057 to reflect the amendment that was distributed earlier this morning. And it reflects the changes to specifically to rezone areas.
Speaker 1: To allow.
Speaker 4: LR one and LR to wait for a second. 1/2. Thank you. As far as what the what the intent is of the amendment itself, a previous amendment had actually been discussed in committee to address clearly concerns about new development in recently up zoned areas. That amendment passed out of committee on September 19th that established a lower threshold for determining if a project is subject to administrative design review. If the project was in an area that was rezone from single family two or three. Today's amendment bills builds on that earlier work. Under this amendment, projects in areas rezone from single family to l, r one and two, and are also between 5008 thousand square feet will be subject to streamlined design review if these two amendments were not included. The data that we have in the last two years, if replicated in future years, gives us an estimate of about 64 projects in low rise zones that would not be subject to any form of design review. And. WHEREAS, the the goal of one of the goals of the design review reform is to reduce the amount of time in the number of projects that are subject to design review. I think there's a strong consensus.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: Hopefully on the part of the committee that when we're looking at areas that are going to be experiencing changes as a result of mandatory housing affordability up zones, that those are areas that would benefit from this, this extra effort on the part of the community to sort of guide the development, making sure it fits in with their communities.
Speaker 2: I concur with those statements. Councilmember Herbold, very well said. And in response to a question that you asked earlier this morning in council briefing Councilmember O'Brien, this proposed amendment would put more projects through the administrative and streamlines design review process, but not the full design review board. So this was a, I think a really well received a moment well worked on by ourselves. Councilmember Herbold, and really intended to get to, just as you said, those single family neighborhoods that over the next two years, as we implement the mandatory housing affordability program in more neighborhoods throughout the city. This amendment would allow for more of those projects to get better design and better review by the city, which I think will be beneficial for the discussions about the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying I buy any opposed. The amendment is adopted. So any further discussions about the base legislation, folks? I might just take the liberty then to sing a few bars about design review. This is a very different product than the product that came to us originally, and I want to say thank you to the Department of Construction and inspections and for the public for working with us. Overall, our objective here was to encourage better design, provide more certainty for community members, as well as designers and architects to alleviate some pressure on design review boards and to achieve some time savings associated with reviews to allow for the design review board members to better spend their time on quality projects that they think they could really use their work. And so we really made some major shifts when this bill has come out of committee very differently than it came in. We gave a special review district and landmark board more authority. We encouraged the preservation of exceptional trees. We've maintained a level of design review that that we just talked about around allowing more projects to go through design review, particularly as they go from single family to something else. And we've also developed new design guidelines for neighborhoods and plan to see more design guidelines developed over the coming years , which I think will again be beneficial for a lot of the projects and locations that are in transition. Lastly, I just want to say thanks. The design review program got picked up a little bit in this process by all sides, but the folks who do that work do it really well and they have a lot of expertize and they are very committed public servants. So I want to thank them for the work that they are doing in the face of us being the one of, if not the fastest growing cities in the nation. I'd like to thank the committee members for hanging in there with us. We saw a lot of Choose Your Own Adventure options as we got into the design review, but I think the change as well will make the end product a much better product.
Speaker 4: So I.
Speaker 1: Put this.
Speaker 4: Tag on. I just wanted to also when you mentioned the Choose Your Own Adventure, the analysis that Ali Pennacchio and Central staff did made it a lot easier.
Speaker 1: To do that because she.
Speaker 4: Actually devised some analysis that helped us when choosing our own adventure on all the different options, a nearly infinite number of options with these different components to really take a look at what kinds of reductions and number of projects to go through design review and the amount of time it would take. And that was really, I think, essential to making good decisions.
Speaker 2: Well said. Further discussions, colleagues. Okay. I'd ask the clerk to please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Flores O'Brien. So I thank John I. Gonzalez Herbold, I. Johnson five seven and favor nine.
Speaker 2: Opposed the bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. Let's read an agenda item number seven, the short title, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; modifying the Design Review program; repealing and replacing Section 23.41.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); amending Sections 3.51.030, 23.41.002, 23.41.008, 23.41.010, 23.41.012, 23.41.014, 23.41.016, 23.41.020, 23.57.013, 23.66.020, 23.66.030, 23.66.035, 23.73.009, 23.73.010, 23.73.012, 23.73.014, 23.73.015, 23.73.024, 23.76.004, 23.76.006, 23.76.008, 23.76.011, 23.76.012, 23.76.026, 23.76.040, 25.11.070, 25.11.080, 25.12.320, 25.12.680, 25.12.690 and 25.12.730 of the SMC; adding new Sections 23.41.015 and 23.41.022 to the SMC; repealing Section 23.41.018 of the SMC; making technical corrections; and adding new Sections 23.66.050 and 25.12.735 to modify the duties of Special Review District Boards and Landmark Preservation Boards by authorizing these Board to make recommendations to SDCI on design review development standard departures. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119055 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 1190 55 Relating to land use and zoning in any Chapter 23.32, said Mr. Code Page at 99, 88 and 100, the official land use map to rezoning land in the uptown area. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you again, an issue that came through my committee. So I'll just sing a couple of bars about uptown and then ask if any of my colleagues have anything they'd like to weigh in on. I'm really pleased to bring this bill in front of you today. It's the result of a lot of hard work by the Office of Planning and Community Development, Jim Holmes from that department in particular, as well as several dozen folks that are still in the audience today. Thanks for hanging in there. Land use nerds. I really appreciate it. We, I think, have brought forward a really good set of amendments as part of this legislation. And one of the things that I think is really unique about the Uptown neighborhood is how often we heard from folks about their interest in more affordable housing, particularly affordable housing related to the arts community. This is a community that has really been rooted in the arts and cultural district that I hope we will adopt shortly after this, as well as we've we as a city have spent a lot of time intentionally trying to support and continue to see more artists not only doing work in the area, but also being able to live in the area. The changes would implement our mandatory housing affordability program, which would create a lot more affordable housing in the neighborhood as a result. We've also introduced some parking maximums to encourage the use of transit in the neighborhood. We've incentivized arts and cultural spaces and space for school bonuses, including our pre-K bonus. And we had a really spirited debate within community about a whole lot of different issues. But I think that they all got resolved in a pretty well oriented fashion. And I want to say thanks to many of those folks who came not all into the several meetings that we had here at City Hall, but then also the really hot night that we had up in Uptown at Uptown Cinema and then again here today. So excited to bring this one forward. I don't believe there are any amendments, but I look to see if any of my other colleagues have any other comments. Yes, please.
Speaker 1: Can I just one question to Councilmember Johnson. I know that there was reference made earlier about an amendment that had been pulled a couple of weeks ago, and that was assuring now that the buildings at 85 feet that any setbacks would occur at six storeys or 65 feet. Is that continuing to be accurate?
Speaker 2: That is my understanding, I believe, and I'm looking to scan in the audience to see if Spencer Williams from my staff is here and he's not here to give me the thumbs up that I'm that I'm saying the right thing out here. But I think multitasking the best that I can. Councilmember backs onto the best of my recollection we we hung things at 65 feet and we stopped there.
Speaker 1: Right. And that's my understanding as well. There was a question that had come up earlier. I just wanted to confirm that that was accurate. But I'm sure we will hear from Spencer if it's wrong. But in the meantime, I really want to say thank you. This has been four years of work. I don't see Jim out there, but Nathan Torgerson, thank you for all the work that your shop has done and much thanks. Councilmember Johnson. Your staff has been tremendous and I really want to acknowledge Spencer and Amy, Patty and Jerry, all who had worked in on my team, Alberta Black has worked very hard in reaching out to the community. The legislation really takes important strides in doing what we were trying to accomplish and really building on the Uptown Urban Design Framework. Debbie FRAUSTO is here and Rick Hooper and Nancy Sjoberg. Thanks to all of you for your good work and others from that community. I'm also really thankful, Councilmember Herbold, for your bringing through the art and culture overlay district. That's going to make a big difference, not just for Uptown but also in Belltown in South Lake Union, as we are working to combine those neighborhoods in no small part because of the work we're doing around Seattle Center. It's going to make a wonderful difference, both in the vibrancy of all the neighborhoods, but the excitement and being able to get there without your single occupancy vehicle, the more innovative mobility strategy. And again, I want to acknowledge the good work that the community has done about making that happen. I understand that there is more art and culture going on in uptown than any neighborhood north of San Francisco. I'll take that. I'm not sure that we've exactly had the count, but I like the approach. Also, members of Ward Street Alliance. Nancy, again, thanks to you for your help and to the Bayview community. I know that there was a lot of worry about that, the impact of shadowing on Bayview and there was, of course, debate about, well, it's already the tallest building. But considering what that building is used for, for some of our most vulnerable citizens, I've I believe that we're going in the right direction to have the 65 feet in that lot right in front of Bayview. So the rezoning obviously is not the end of the day. There's more work that we will be doing. But recognizing too that this is just the first step and I'm as your D7 representative, I'm really committed to making sure that this works and that the work, the additional work that we're doing now around Seattle Center is going to make a big difference in your lives. We want to make sure that it works smoothly and it works for your benefit. So thank you again.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien, I saw you pulling your microphone closer.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. And I won't reiterate many of the point. I agree with Councilmember Bagshaw. One of the points is this is not the end. There's ongoing work to be done. And I want to speak specifically to the and the property adjacent to Royce Street. That has been a piece of ongoing discussion about whether the appropriate height there is 65 or 85 feet. I support a well designed building at 85 feet at that site, but I've chosen not to bring an amendment forward today. I understand that there is ongoing conversation between the Bayview property and the property owners of the one that's subject to the up zone. And I just encourage that those conversations continue to happen. There are other processes for that to hopefully be resolved, and I want to just commit to folks to stay engaged as a councilmember on that and look forward to that. Community can have conversations. I don't think that the conversations were ripe enough to take action today, but I suspect with some good work on both sides, there could be a resolution that meets a lot of folks needs, and I look forward to supporting that if that opportunity comes back to the council.
Speaker 2: Excellent. So, yes, please. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 1: Just very quickly.
Speaker 4: We'll be talking about this a little bit more in the resolution that follows. But I wanted to thank you, Chair Johnson, for bringing forward the amendment that increases the floor ratio to to allow for the development of art spaces. This was one of the recommendations of the Creation, Activation and Preservation Report that came out of the Arts Office. There's three different ideas to encourage and activate our artists space in Seattle. And this is one one of those ideas and very important to the arts community and the conversations that we'll be having as it relates to the resolution, I think are a good example about how our inspiring are aspirational goals can actually work with the regulations that we put in our in our land use code about physical spaces. So thank you for bringing that forward.
Speaker 2: Thanks. Matthew Richter does great work. Happy to have carried his water. So we do have some technical changes. I missed that in the beginning. So there is a substitute version five in front of you. So I'd ask for your support and move amendment, but I'd move to amend accountable 119055 by substituting version five for version.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 2: Further discussion. All those in favor please signify by saying I by any opposed. Okay, we've got an amended bill in front of us. So I'd move to pass Council Bill 119055 as amended for the discussion. Okay, I've seen that and asked the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Whereas. O'Brian. So what? Major Gonzalez Herbold Hi. Johnson. By seven in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 2: A bill is passed and the chair will sign it. Congratulations. Uptown. Let's move on to agenda item number eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at pages 99, 98, and 100 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone land in the Uptown area; amending Sections 23.30.010, 23.45.517, 23.48.002, 23.48.005, 23.48.020, 23.48.021, 23.48.040, 23.48.055, 23.48.085, 23.48.620, 23.58A.042, 23.58C.050, 23.84A.025, 23.84A.042, and 25.05.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Subchapter VI to Chapter 23.48 of the Seattle Municipal Code, consisting of Sections 23.48.702, 23.48.705, 23.48.720, 23.48.721, 23.48.722, 23.48.723, 23.48.724, 23.48.730, 23.48.732, 23.48.735, 23.48.740, 23.48.745, 23.48.750, 23.48.755, 23.48.780, and 23.48.785, to rezone areas in the Uptown Urban Center. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_Res 31772 | Speaker 3: Agenda item eight, resolution 31772 calling for additional actions by the city and its partners to advance the vision of the Uptown Urban Design Framework. Leverage and new investments at Steel Center to support mobility and promote livability in the Uptown Urban Center as both Uptown and Seattle Center grow. And to update the Staples Center 20th Century 21 Master Plan, the committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Clerk. We, as we have in many of our previous zoning changes, proposed the companion resolution because there are oftentimes things that come up in community that don't directly relate to the land use code. This is one of those instances and we've got a resolution that again calls on a lot of the great work that is happening in Uptown and will continue to happen as a result of the urban design framework. And also certainly as discussions continue to move forward here at City Hall about Karina and renovations. There's many issues here in the neighborhood that we want to highlight that the council wants to see the city continue to take action on. I don't know if you have any additional comments, Councilmember Bagshaw, or if any of my colleagues would like to speak at all about the resolution. Okay. Seeing none, I would ask for adoption of resolution 3172 2 seconds. All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying hi, hi and oppose a resolution is adopted. Agenda item number nine. Madam Clerk.
Speaker 3: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Gender nine Resolution 317 66 Creating an arts and cultural district in the uptown neighborhood of Seattle, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION calling for additional actions by the City and its partners to advance the vision of the Uptown Urban Design Framework, leverage new investments at Seattle Center to support mobility and promote livability in the Uptown Urban Center as both Uptown and Seattle Center grow, and to update the Seattle Center Century 21 Master Plan. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119079 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 11 Council 1190 79. Related to the city of Seattle's Maple Leaf Radio Transmitter Facility, authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute a license agreement with King County for its use of the radio transmitter site at Maple Leaf Reservoir for the new regional Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network, and declaring a portion of the property license for King County's use in the same location to be surplus to the city's utility needs committee recommends the bill pass again.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This council bill authorizes the Director of Finance Administrative Services to execute a license agreement with King County for its use of the radio transmitter site at the Maple Leaf Reservoir for the new regional Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network. As approved by the voters, this agreement will govern the Puget Sound Emergency Radio Networks use of the city's radio transmitter facility located in North Seattle, adjacent to Seattle Public Utilities, Maple Leaf Reservoir, FAA, US and King County have negotiated a license agreement which will govern Pearson's use of the Maple Leaf transmitter for a term of 25 years . I believe that the return for the city is about $30,000 a year. As a result of this licensing agreement, the Education, Equity and Governance Committee recommends the full council adopt this Council bill.
Speaker 2: Any comments? Colleagues saying that I'd move adoption of Council Bill 119079. Second for the discussion. The clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Suarez O'Brien. Sergeant Major Gonzales, I Herbold. Hi, Johnson. By seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 2: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Agenda item number 12.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 12. Appointment 848. Appointment of Rachel Stewart as Member of Families and Education Levy Oversight Committee for Term two December 31st, 2018. The committee recommends to see this appointment be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City of Seattle’s Maple Leaf radio-transmitter facility; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute a license agreement with King County for its use of the radio-transmitter site at Maple Leaf reservoir for the new regional Puget Sound emergency radio network; and declaring a portion of property licensed for King County’s use in the same location to be surplus to the City’s utility needs. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09252017_CB 119085 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Parks Library, Sir. Excuse me. The Report of the Park Sales Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee General 17 Council 119035 authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to execute and accept from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the City of Seattle, an aquatic lands lease for Seattle's waterfront parks and I think for research in prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Kasper and Bagshaw.
Speaker 7: I'm pissed. Oh.
Speaker 2: Maybe you're.
Speaker 0: Our.
Speaker 7: So I'll just talk loud and know. I think I'll take it. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. I'm actually pinch hitting here for Councilmember Suarez. The bill in front of us will approve a lease agreement with the Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Lands at Seattle's Waterfront Park, Pier 62 and 63. It's an updated lease. It's necessary to update and complete the reconstruction we're very excited about. This work has been in front of the park's waterfront committee for many, many times over the last year. There's no cost to the city for this, and the committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson O'Brien. Sergeant Major Gonzalez i herbold II. President Harrell II. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in Sherwood Senate. Please read an item number 18. | 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, an Aquatic Lands Lease for Seattle’s Waterfront Parks; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09252017_CB 119086 | Speaker 0: Bill passed in Sherwood Senate. Please read an item number 18.
Speaker 6: Item 18 Council Vote 1190 86 relating to the Central Waterfront Project authorizing a Second Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning renovation and expansion of the SAIL Aquarium and development of the Central Waterfront Project between the City of Seattle and Seattle Aquarium Society. The committee recommends the bill pass from Bexar.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This bill will approve an update to the menu between the city and the aquarium. We first entered into this, I believe, in 2012. And the the effort here is to reaffirm the role of the Ocean Pavilion as a key element and the Central Waterfront Project, in fact, that's been in front of us once again. And we've seen multiple versions of this about where the Ocean Pavilion will be located and the aquarium now will agree and surpass the 1 to 1 match to cities funds that have already been invested to create a project design that, as we call it, 30% design. So this again is an extension and we recommend passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Johnson.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 1: So on I lecture Gonzalez I Herbold I President Harrell I seven in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Number 19. Well I thought we held 20, so probably.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 0: So 19.
Speaker 6: Right. Okay.
Speaker 0: Well, I was right on a procedure around here. Finally got one. Right. Okay, let's go 19 and we'll skip 20 to 23. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Project; authorizing a second amendment of the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Renovation and Expansion of the Seattle Aquarium and Development of the Central Waterfront Project between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Aquarium Society. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09252017_CB 119037 | Speaker 6: The report on the Civil Rights, Utility and Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item 19 Council 1190 37 related to Appropriations for the Office of Arts and Culture amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget and lifting a proviso imposed on the Arts of Office of Arts and Cultures. Capital Arts Budget Control level by Seattle City Council Green Sheet 60 81b1 Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Cast Member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 5: Council Bill 11 9037 releases $1.3 million in funds that was approved in last year's adopted budget. It approves funding agreements for projects including Town Hall, the Nordic Heritage Museum, the Burke Museum and Hugo House. The first four are to release funds for 350,000 and Hugo House for 250,000. The legislation itself includes agreements with each of these organizations for public benefits. Town Hall will provide its entire arts and culture series free of charge to those under age 22 and conduct specific outreach to make marginalized communities aware of the free tickets and actively invite communities to events, as well as work with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs on Outreach. The Nordic Heritage Museum will implement a new low cost membership category for low income families, and they will also work to spread the membership model by promoting it among a National Association of museums that that recipients of the low, low income membership here in Seattle will be able to use it and in other jurisdictions across the country. The Burke Museum will provide all students participating in on site school programs with an adult and youth admission pass. And the Hugo House will provide free or reduced field trip admissions to schools, with the majority of low income students and free weekly drop ins to writing circles in rent classrooms for free to organizations serving low income communities and communities of color, and up to 150 free tickets to fee based events.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments that please called the rule on the passage of the Bill Johnson?
Speaker 1: O'BRIEN So, Sergeant, I make sure. Gonzales I Herbold II President Harrell I seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Will pass and chair of the Senate. So we've held items 2021 and 22 and 23. So let's move to item 24. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Office of Arts & Culture; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget; and lifting a proviso imposed on the Office of Arts & Culture’s Capital Arts Budget Control Level by Seattle City Council Green Sheet 68-1-B-1. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_Res 31774 | Speaker 8: Reports for Introduction and Adoption Resolution 31774a resolution expressing the City of Seattle support for single payer health care system supporting United States Senate Bill 1804 and requesting the support of Washington U.S. senators.
Speaker 0: And I understand that there is an amendment to Resolution 31774.
Speaker 4: And I think opening.
Speaker 0: Would you would you like to make opening remarks before we consider amendments? Okay. Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Gonzalez, and I appreciate you moving the item to the top of the agenda so that activists can go back to work or school or their other desk that they need to go to. So this is another, as we already know, Donald Trump, the right wing and the Republicans have tried again and again to dismantle what little health coverage we have. These are barbaric attacks that they are attempting, but the only way to defeat these attacks permanently is to not stay on the defense, but to play offense. And the best antidote to Trump's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act is to pass a nationwide single payer Medicare for All legislation. And as I mentioned before, this issue has garnered so much momentum, primarily tangs to ordinary working people, young people, people of all ethnicities and all sexual orientation who have fought, who have started fighting for this. And this issue gained momentum and got energized around Bernie Sanders this campaign last year. And now it has gained so much energy that when he put this forward in the Senate, he already had 16 senators supporting him. But two senators haven't yet. Many haven't, but two of them are in Washington State. Marian Cantwell. And I think this is one of the most important parts of our resolution. It is outrageous that Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, while repeatedly paying lip service to the agenda of working people, have still failed to co-sponsor Medicare for All. This resolution. Stage the city's position in favor of Medicare for All and asks Senators Cantwell and Murray to support Sanders's legislation. Single payer is overwhelmingly popular among regular people and consistently being supported in polls by over 60% of those polled. But popular is not enough. Establishment politicians always lean towards the profits of big business. In this case, the profits of insurance and big pharmaceutical corporations. And that is why activists on the ground have to bring pressure to bear. I specifically wanted to thank all the activists in the state of Washington especially, and also the nurses, unions and socialists and other activists in the state of California who really put forward a strong fight for single payer healthcare in that state. We know that even with the Affordable Care Act, 28 million people are uninsured and millions more remain uninsured. What would it actually take to win single payer health care? First of all, it is important that we carry out actions like today where entire cities take a very clear position in favor of single payer health care. But that won't be enough. We will have to build on what we went today in order to continue to build serious momentum statewide. We have a lesson from a country right now. You know, our neighbor, Canada, we don't talk enough about Canada. In Canada, universal health care supporters, socialists and strong fighting labor movement. One single payer health care by setting up their own independent party, which was then called the CCF, which later came to be known as the NDP, which won elections in just one province, Saskatchewan, after activists won their own seats in government. They established single payer health care in the province of Saskatchewan, and they used that position to really popularize a health care system that works. Health care system that is affordable and is humane. This health care became so popular nationwide in Canada that establishment parties at the center became terrified that if they did not pay heed to this movement, then their parties would lose elections at the central government level. And that is why it was in response to the strong momentum that Canada's Conservative Party passed their single payer system. And that is why sisters and brothers, eventually Washington, D.C., fails to support single payer. Washington State's elected officials have a duty to do it locally, but at the same time, we have to be clear that that won't happen without the power of mass movement of regular people, like many of us who are here today. I wanted to thank all the activists who came here, took time out of their day to speak about the need for single payer healthcare, specifically to thank Dr. David Springer, who who's a pediatrician and who spoke on behalf of the Puget Sound. Advocates for Demand Action, Bizarro and Health Care for All Coalition and activists from Whole Washington like Joshua Davenport, Physicians for a National Health Plan, Socialist, Alternative, and many others who are helping to build a movement. I urge the Council to vote yes on this resolution without any watered down amendments. And last but not least. And last but not least, I wanted to say I agree with Emerson, an activist from socialist students who said that homelessness, the housing crisis, lack of health care, these are not isolated problems, but they are all together symptomatic of an inhumane and dysfunctional system. And therefore, I wanted to conclude by saying that I agree with all the activists. We need a stop to the sweeps of homeless people. We need affordable housing to house the homeless.
Speaker 0: Thank you council members want. I understand that Councilmember Bagshaw has an amendment to resolution 3177.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. This is.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is actually good news. After I am totally supporting councilmembers who want. I appreciate all of you here. I have been working with rank chop in our legislature about looking at something in the state of Washington, Ala. What the State of California has done in response to our Office of Inter-Government Relations today. One recommendation that they made was to expand it beyond just the Senate to be able to say to convey the support to the Seattle congressional delegation. And then in Section four, to say that we urge the Seattle the entire Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate 1804 and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. So the goal is to move forward with more than just one option. So that is my amendment and recommendation that is coming from our Office of Inter-Government Relations.
Speaker 1: So I guess now.
Speaker 0: I have to use the words. Okay. So I moved to suspend Council Rule 386 relating to presentation of amendments 2 hours before the full council meeting.
Speaker 6: Second. Okay.
Speaker 0: All those in favor say aye. I any opposed? Okay. So we have suspended the council rules and now I will have Council Member Bagshaw move her amendment and it will need to be seconded.
Speaker 6: Good. Well, I move this. I move this amendment as proposed and ask for a second.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Magashule's amendment to resolution 31774 has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Conservative. Could you restate the amendment? I didn't quite follow at all what and where it would go.
Speaker 6: I, I, i pass this out. I guess it's kind of stuck right here. Sorry. It's in the last page line seven that we convey this to convey this support to the Seattle congressional delegation. So it's more than just our senators. And then Section four, the Seattle City Council. I think it should be, urges the Seattle Congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate 1804 and in support of their future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all.
Speaker 0: Are there any other comments? Members want.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I do not support this amendment. This amendment just to make sure all members of the public are with us on understanding what the amendment is. The original statement says the Seattle City Council request that Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray support Medicare for all by co-sponsoring Senate 180 for the amendment from Councilmember Bagshaw. As the Seattle City Council urges the Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor one or two or four and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. This is not an innocuous amendment, and I don't support it because it does indeed water down the most one of the most important parts of the resolution , which is naming Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell by name. And there's a reason.
Speaker 7: Why we're naming the.
Speaker 4: The voters of Senators Murray and Cantwell and their constituents overwhelmingly support single payer health care. Let's not forget that every county in Washington state in the primaries went with great majorities for Bernie Sanders, who was calling for single payer health care for all. And so it is very, very important for their constituents and for all of us in Seattle to know where Senators Murray, Murray and Cantwell stand on this issue. And by simply saying congressional delegation, it means everybody is responsible and nobody's responsible. We want to know where the senators stand on this issue. And I. Our eye is not naive. We know that when we name elected officials by name, it puts public pressure on them. And that is exactly what we need. We want to send a strong message to Cantwell and Murray that they have a choice they can support Senate wanted, you know, for and really push to fight for single payer health care or else movements need to gather steam and run our own candidates against corporate Democrats who will not fight for that. And then the simple question to Cantwell and Murray is that if they are supposedly carrying out efforts for hope for some future bill, then why don't they start by supporting this 1/1?
Speaker 2: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Councilmember Bagshaw, would you be open to revising the language? I appreciate the ability to expand it to the congressional delegation and other legislation. I also would like to specifically name our two senators and hear where they are on the record. Would you be open to language that left that in but also added yours?
Speaker 6: I absolutely think that that's where the votes are going. And of course. Yes.
Speaker 3: So maybe someone else can talk for a second and I'll think of how to do this wordsmithing.
Speaker 0: Can I just offer some potential language? So on page two, lines ten, three, 11, it does specifically states that Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray have not yet co-sponsored the Senate bill. But I think what Councilmember Silence requests is that that also be included in Section four. So perhaps what we can just say is the Seattle City Council urges the Seattle congressional delegation, including Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, comma, to co-sponsor Senate Bill one eight the reform and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I appreciate your wording.
Speaker 0: So that we're specifically naming them in Section four.
Speaker 1: Wood.
Speaker 4: Can I just make a slight change to I'd say the Seattle City Council urges Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and the, you know, the whole of the Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor. Senate wanted you for.
Speaker 7: Him to support.
Speaker 0: I think that's.
Speaker 2: Exactly what I just said. But you reversed the.
Speaker 0: Order, and.
Speaker 2: I'm fine with it. It makes.
Speaker 4: A difference, and.
Speaker 2: It's fine.
Speaker 0: And this is this is not my amendment. So I should not be okaying it. It is Councilmember Banks amendment.
Speaker 1: So I would.
Speaker 0: Defer to you, Councilman, of actually in terms of whether you think that's a friendly.
Speaker 2: Amendment.
Speaker 6: I think we're moving in this direction. And I would like very much to see this statement made. And I'm going to be I'm going to support it. And I appreciate your suggested amendment.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 4: Peter, just for the clerk, I.
Speaker 0: I can I'm happy to repeat the language, if that makes sense, to do that now. Okay. So Section four would read the Seattle City Council Council urges Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and the entire Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate Bill 1804 and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all
Speaker 4: . Sounds good.
Speaker 0: Okay, so that sounds like we have consensus.
Speaker 3: I would second that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So the amendment. To the proposed. Are you withdrawing your original amendment and replacing it with us?
Speaker 6: I appreciate that. I just want to underscore that the recommendation from our Office of Intergovernmental Relations was to focus on the congressional delegation as a whole. If this language is supported by all of us, I think we're better off being unanimous than not. Well.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have an amendment to resolution 31774, which would incorporate the language proposed by Councilmember Bagshaw in version D, one of the amended resolution that she distributed today that would change the language in Section four to read. The Seattle City Council urges Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and the entire Seattle congressional delegation to co-sponsor Senate Bill 1804 and to support other future legislative efforts to improve access for health care for all. And there's been a second, Kate, all those in favor say i.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Any opposed amendment passes unanimously. You guys just wanted to make this council president pro tem for me extra hard today.
Speaker 3: We want to keep you as long as we can.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 0: 5:00.
Speaker 2: 5:00.
Speaker 0: So with that being said, we have a move to Florida for a resolution and seconded for passage of resolution 31774. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed resolution 31774 passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 1: Heather Graham. Ted just brought this.
Speaker 3: Into the senate and work as.
Speaker 1: You look at how many pieces.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: Uh oh.
Speaker 0: Okay. We will now have the report of the Park, Seattle Central Libraries and Waterfront Committee. If the clerk will please read the report. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION expressing the Seattle City Council’s support for a single-payer healthcare system (“Medicare for All”), supporting United States Senate Bill 1804, and requesting the support of Washington’s U.S. Senators. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CB 119070 | Speaker 8: The report of the Park Sales Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item one Council 1190 70 relating to the redevelopment of certain city owned real property across from the Sale Center, Campus Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Wirth Thank you Councilman. President, Consultants Pro Tem Council Bill 119070 which refers to the block project. Part of this property is publicly owned. The other portion was owned by the sale. Opera was sold for development as the block is developed to include two housing developments and public open space. The city intends to build affordable housing on a portion of the parcel owned by the city. This legislation would allow for the execution of a restrictive covenant easement quitclaim and a circulation agreement all meant to support the planned development of the housing and open space. The committee recommends passage of the Amendment Council Bill 119070. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any comments? Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Burgess. All right. Johnson. All right. Maurice O'Brien. All right. So on Baker Gonzalez. I seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Careful. The clerk please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the redevelopment of certain City-owned real property across from the Seattle Center campus; authorizing the execution of a Restrictive Covenant, Easement and Circulation Agreement with 225 Roy LLC for the coordinated development of the parties’ adjacent properties; authorizing the execution of a quitclaim deed to a portion of the City property to 225 Roy LLC in exchange for an easement providing that the property be used and maintained as publicly accessible open space, in perpetuity; and authorizing the Director of the Seattle Center Department to execute documents and take other actions in connection with this matter. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CB 119068 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Careful. The clerk please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 8: The report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee and Adam to cancel 1119068 granting MCP Ali 24 East LLC permission to maintain operate a skybridge over an across the alley and blocked bordered by Pontus Avenue North and Yale Avenue North and John Street and Thomas Street. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So a little over ten years ago, the city granted the permission for this SkyBridge. This is it, a project known as Alley 24 in the Cascade neighborhood. This is just west of the RCI flagship building there. That original ten year permit also had 210 year extensions. And this is the first of those ten year extensions. And as consistent with our laws, they will be updating their insurance requirement and the annual fee will be updated to.
Speaker 0: Are there any comments? All right. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess, Johnson, Suarez. All right. So on. I beg your. All right. Gonzalez, I seven in favor. Not unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next Agenda item.
Speaker 8: Short title. Agenda item three Resolution 317 67 Granting Conceptual Approval of City Investors 25 LLC Construction Solid Maintain two sets of Private Communication Conduits Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting MCP Alley24 East, LLC, permission to maintain and operate a skybridge over and across the alley in the block bordered by Pontius Avenue North and Yale Avenue North, and John Street and Thomas Street; amending Ordinance 122113, updating the insurance and bond requirements, amending the annual fee and other terms and conditions of the permit, renewing the term of the permit, and providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_Res 31767 | Speaker 8: Short title. Agenda item three Resolution 317 67 Granting Conceptual Approval of City Investors 25 LLC Construction Solid Maintain two sets of Private Communication Conduits Committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Q This is a conceptual approval for a project in South Lake Union, just south of sorry, just north of Denny Park, two buildings that are under construction and proposed to be leased to Facebook. The tenant has requested and the developer requested permission to have these conduits under the street so that the two buildings, software infrastructure and hardware infrastructure can be connected securely. This lays out the outline of how that would move forward, and once the project is complete, we would have a binding agreement in committee. We had discussions about what would happen if for some reason the city needed to do something different with that right away. They have access to it and those conduits were in the way. And we have owners under conditions with some time constraints to go ahead and change that deal any time if the right away access is necessary.
Speaker 0: Are there any comments? Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. This is a resolution. Just kidding. Those in favor of adopting the resolution.
Speaker 5: Vote I.
Speaker 0: Those oppose vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please? We will not have the report of the planning, land use and Zoning Committee. Will the clerk please read the short title of the report?
Speaker 8: The report of the Planning and Zoning Commission on four cancel 119069 relate to the Seattle Electrical Code Committee. Recommend to pass. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to City Investors XXV LLC to construct, install, and maintain two sets of private communication conduits under and across 8th Avenue North, south of Harrison Street and north of Thomas Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CB 119069 | Speaker 8: The report of the Planning and Zoning Commission on four cancel 119069 relate to the Seattle Electrical Code Committee. Recommend to pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Hello. From the lonely left side of the dais. I'm filling out on an island today. Council Bill 119069 Update our Seattle Electrical Code. It's a pretty perfunctory change to make it consistent with our state and federal regulations. But just a couple of interesting examples for my colleagues and members of the public. This makes it a little bit easier for folks to do important things like installing solar shingles on their properties, and also includes specific changes like requiring electric vehicle charging stations when people are building out multi-family and single family homes. Urge your support.
Speaker 0: Are there any.
Speaker 2: Comments?
Speaker 0: Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Burgess Johnson by Flores O'Brien. Hi. So what are Gonzales I seven and favorite on a post?
Speaker 0: Well, this is a big one. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Key. Agenda number five. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Electrical Code; amending Section 22.300.016 of the Seattle Municipal Code; adopting the 2017 National Electrical Code with Seattle amendments; adopting by incorporation specific portions of the 2017 Washington Administrative Code Chapter 296-46B (Washington State Electrical Rule); and repealing Sections 2 through 34 of Ordinance 124593. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CB 119072 | Speaker 8: And item six Council Bill 1190 72 relating to the Sales Technical Codes Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson Last.
Speaker 9: One for me today. This is generally referred to as our Technical Code's Errata Bill. Here's two examples. It cleans up several of our codes, like requiring rat eradication before demolition of property and updating requirements for elevator permit records management. Exciting stuff. Council President. Urge your support.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: You're a punchy group today. Oh, right. So, are there any comments? Right. Well, the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Burgess Johnson Right. Maurice O'Brien So on page one, Gonzalez seven in favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. A report of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities and New Americans Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle’s technical codes; amending the 2015 Seattle Building, Existing Building, Residential, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Energy Codes to clarify regulations, adopt amendments consistent with Washington State regulations, and make technical corrections; amending Sections 22.100.010 and 22.150.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and requesting that the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections submit code updates to the Office of the City Clerk. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CF 314339 | Speaker 0: If the bill passes and the chair will sign it. Okay. Agenda Items eight through 12 short titles.
Speaker 8: Agenda Items eight 312 Quick File 314339315 340 314 317 three one 4374 and 314 351st December 2015. Report of the Police Intelligence Order Pursuant to Orders 108333 Response of the Police Chief to the December 2015 Report Chief of Police Audit Report to select files obtained through Police Departments Membership to the Law Enforcers Intelligence Unit Seattle Police Chief 2016 Annual Report concerning activities regulated by Ordinance 108333 and Chief of Police Audit Report as selected files obtained through the Police Department's Membership and Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, the Commission recommends that all these files be placed on file.
Speaker 0: Thank you. These five click files relate to reports received routinely by the Seattle City Council from the Seattle Police Department regarding the intelligence auditor ordinance. And they date from 2015 and 2016 and include responses from the Seattle Police Department Chief of Police with regard to compliance with the intelligence auditor ordinance. And the committee heard reports related to the findings by the intelligence auditor and the Chief of police's response to those findings. And the Committee recommends that the full council file these clerk files. Are there any comments? That's Mercyone.
Speaker 4: Thank you. President Gonzalez. I intend to vote yes on this agenda item along with the next several agenda items, because these votes only accept the clerk files, they are not an endorsement of their content. These files contain the audits of the Seattle Police Department's surveillance and similar activities. However, last year, excellent reporting by Ansel Herz demonstrated that the audit process itself is totally perfunctory and is not a process capable of uncovering abuses of the system if there are any. For example, the auditor requests files and they are provided by the Seattle Police Department. But there is no system whereby the auditor can systematically look through the files that have not been provided or investigate topics that have not been provided for. So I will vote yes on filing the closed files because they should be on file. But I continue to support a more expansive audit process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Excellent. And then just on that point, that's part of the reason why we in the Police Accountability Ordinance folded. The intelligence auditor functions into what will hopefully be the new Office of Inspector General is precisely the issues that you have highlighted. So we we talked about that during our committee hearing and looking forward to having a more robust, systemic way of being able to identify those system issues. But thank you for highlighting that today. Okay. Any other comments?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. This is. Okay. So is this like a resolution, Amelia? Oh. Those in favor of filing clerk files 314339314340314373314374 and 314351 vote i.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Those oppose vote no. The motion carries in the files are placed on file. Keep the report of the Energy and Environment Committee. | Clerk File (CF) | December 2015 Report of the Police Intelligence Audit Pursuant to Ordinance 108333 (Seattle Municipal Code 14.12). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09182017_CB 119066 | Speaker 0: Motion passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk read the Human Services and Public Health Committee report.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee Agenda Item 16 Council Bill 1190 66 Relating to the Urban Forestry Commission, adding three members and amending Section 3.70 2.0 to 29.0 37. Mr.. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember BAGSHAW.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This Commission has recommended that we add three new positions to it so that there will be 13 members of the Commission an environmental justice representative, a public health representative with experience in Behavioral Health and a community neighborhood represented representative from underrepresented groups in the environmental field and so on. We recommend that these three positions be added and that this Council give final support to it.
Speaker 0: Are there any comments? Okay. Will the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: Burgess. Johnson. Marez O'Brian. Sergeant Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzalez seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 6: Very good.
Speaker 0: Thank Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk read agenda item 17 and 18?
Speaker 8: Agenda Item 17 and 18 appointments 827 and 829 appointment. Adam Spencer Also Brooke as member Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2018 and appointment of Jiangsu NEF as Kiran as member of Pioneer Square Preservation Board for Term two March 1st, 2020, the committee recommends his appointments be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Urban Forestry Commission; adding three new members; and amending Sections 3.72.020 and 3.72.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_CB 119045 | Speaker 1: Very good. Any comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i. I opposed the motion carries an appointment is confirmed. Please read agenda item number 28 and ten.
Speaker 6: Item 28 cancel 1190 45. Relating to the sale and redevelopment of the former public safety building block, authorizing the execution of an amended receipt of purchase and Sale and Development Agreement with Bozo Development USA LLC for the construction of residential project with public parking, public open space and associated retail space authorizing the acceptance of an easement from Bowser on the property and authorizing Director of Finance Administrative Services to execute documents and take other actions. In connection with this project, the committee recommends that the bill passes, amended with the Divided report with councilmembers Burgess, Herbold, Johnson and O'Brien favoring councilmembers. So want a post from Burgess?
Speaker 0: Thank you. First of all, I want to start by giving a little history of of this project, which is directly across the street, across Fourth Avenue, where the old public safety headquarters building used to stand. None of us on the city council today or the mayor were involved when the city made a decision in 2007 to allow development of that site, including a civic square plaza. In 2007, when that decision was made. That followed a ten year process where the city engaged with a variety of developers and finally came up with the proposal that was won by Triad development. Due to the Great Recession and other issues, Triad has been unable to develop the project. The city has, since Triad failed, has been involved with four different attempts to find someone who could develop the project. And Bowser Development is the organization that has advanced the proposal that we will consider today. This legislation, if adopted, allows the director of FASB to execute an amended and restated purpose and sale development agreement with Bowser Development. The property formerly known as the Public Safety Building BLOCK. Bowser will construct a single tower residential project on the property, as well as a 25,000 square foot public plaza which the city has the right to approve the design of. Bowser will pay the city $16 million in sale proceeds, which will go to our Equitable Development Initiative. Bowser will pay the city a minimum of $5.7 million for affordable housing. The final amount of this affordable housing payment will be determined once the final design of the residential tower is complete. The project also calls for continuous operation of the Pioneer Square Transit Tunnel Station, which is located beneath this block. The total consideration for the city to receive here is approximately $50 million $16 million in sale proceeds. The minimum contribution of $5.7 million in affordable housing. The release of liability of the city, and the waiver of potential litigation costs. An immediate maintenance requirement. Once this ordinance is adopted by the Council, Bowser will take immediate control and will begin doing maintenance on the walls of the pit across the street. Some of that maintenance is needed almost immediately. The committee recommends that this legislation be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Comments, concerns or questions? Councilmember Johnson just.
Speaker 3: Wanted to offer a couple of quick things. One of the things that I think was important in my consideration of voting for this is that we also have a project labor agreement. That's one of the conditions of the proposed term and sale and that that project labor agreement has already been sent after. Washington, D.C. was a really great sign for us. The developer has a track record here in Seattle but is still relatively new to the city. So working proactively with our building construction trades to develop a project labor agreement that will bring more apprentices and more individuals to the construction trades, I think is going to be really critical here. That $5.7 million floor that Councilmember Burgess talked about would build at minimum 70 units of affordable housing here in the city and will be larger if it's found that the floor plates for the tower is larger than what was originally proposed by the previous developer. So good options here for us and really looking forward to the final action here this afternoon.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much for the comments. I'm going to ask the clerk, please call the roll on that. I'm sorry, Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Herrell. I voted against this council bill in committee and I intend to do so again today. And I would like to take a moment to explain why this vote authorizes the sale of an extremely valuable city property to a big developer for $16 million, which I think would be an estimated at least an estimated $40 million less than its actual value. This sweetheart deal for Seattle's mega developers is nothing new, really. As was mentioned accurately, this property has been sitting idle for the past nine years because under former Mayor Nickels, the city gave a really. Obnoxious sweetheart deal to another giant developer triad. In that instance of corporate welfare, the city offered the property to try out for free as long as Triad built a so-called Semipublic Park, also called the Civic Square Plaza, on part of it. Over the last nine years, Triad has not even accomplished that. It is true that the current council was not involved in that deal, but the current council does have an obligation to make decisions today that are in the best interests of working people and the most vulnerable in our society. Outrageously, we do not even know how much the city is losing in this deal because the city never did an appraisal. In committee, I asked the Finance and Administrative Services staff about this and they responded that they had hired a company to do an appraisal a year ago, but that appraisal was never completed. This is extremely unusual because making having an appraisal done is a very basic step. For example, a couple of months ago, Seattle City Light Surplus, a similarly sized property in Salt Lake Union. In that meeting in my committee in the Energy and Environment Committee, City Lights said that they had hired an external appraiser and would probably do a second appraisal right when the property went up for a bid to make sure that city light and hence the taxpayers of this city get the best possible deal. I asked City Lights expert at that table if hiring an external auditor was standard and, you know, standard practice and central staff. I responded and I quote, four properties the city is selling. Yes, it generally gets an independent appraisal, unquote. And the city led expert also added, quote, And certainly for anything of this size unquote, before selling the property, this property, I think the city should do a proper appraisal not only to get the actual market value for it , but also to help the council and other members of the public decide what to prioritize. For example, the current deal maintains that Semipublic Park on part of the property. I say Semipublic because every time there is a public park on private property, the public never really feels comfortable using it. And it ends up becoming, whether it's intended to or not, like a private yard. Urban planners will tell you that if members of the public don't clearly know that some area is public, they often don't venture into it because they're not sure and they don't want to get into trouble. Really, the public will use the waterfront park a few blocks away. How much more could the city get for this property if it did not include the Civic Square Plaza? I don't know, but an appraisal would tell us. And to be clear, I think we are certainly talking in the tens of millions. Without this plaza, a developer could build a second tower that would double the housing that could be built, increase the money for equitable development, that the city would be paid for the property. And keep in mind, equitable development. Development money is what's being touted as an advantage. But, you know, that's a little bit of a it's a specious argument. Those benefits would happen regardless of when and how the sale went to, because these are benefits that the city would accrue. So why not do it for the real value of the property? And similarly, the city council members are saying that there is a $5.7 million benefit, but those are a major payment that would happen regardless of what the illicitly put in place. These are these are misleading, specious arguments being made to say that this is a good deal. And it could if the second tower were built, then it would increase the money for equitable development and it would double the MJ payment during the development for affordable housing. And so this option hasn't been considered, the public hasn't been made privy to that. Another example is the zoning of the property, which is zoned lower than the other side of Fourth Avenue where City Hall is. If the city absorbed this property before selling it, how would that change the property value? I think that's a good question to ask and appraisal would tell us the answer to that question. I understand that the city benefits from offloading the headache of any possible future litigation around the Triad deal. And I wouldn't scoff at that, but but I don't believe that it is in any way worth a $40 million discount. Instead of maximizing the value to the city and the people of this city, there is a rush to sign this sweetheart deal with Bozo, as a matter of fact, because there was a divided report on the committee, you know, meaning at least one councilmember voting no. It should be customarily this vote would have come a week from now, but this was rushed even beyond the are all already being rushed. So if councilmembers insist on voting on this today, I will be voting no. This is corporate welfare and I will not support it. I also want to do. Add my support to those who spoke during public testimony against the sweeps of homeless people. We absolutely want to stop sweeps right away and urgently build affordable housing to house all homeless people by taxing big business. Thank you for talking about this. We're going to do it in government.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember one Any further comments before we call the roll call on the passage of the bill? Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 0: I'd like to close our discussion of this. As I mentioned earlier, this is the fourth attempt by the city to use the property across the street after the Triad experience. The city entered into negotiations with two other development firms. Neither of those firms were able to advance a proposal that made the development of the site economically viable to them, and they chose not to proceed. And then the bowser consideration came before us, as is typical in major real estate transactions like this. The city did have a valuation of that property conducted and developed by outside party that does this work. It was estimated that the site is worth somewhere between 45 and $55 million, depending especially on how the light rail station is treated at that site. The city chose not to publish that appraisal because doing so would have made that document available to public disclosure. And we did not want to signal the price that the city was attempting to achieve. When you calculate the value of this transaction to the city of Seattle, it is approximately $50 million right in the middle of what that valuation indicated we should be able to obtain on the open market. This is a prudent transaction that is in the best interest of the taxpayers of Seattle. And the reason we are acting on this today is because this deal expires at the end of September if the council does not take action. Also, the $1,085,000 that has been placed in escrow essentially will transfer immediately to the city on the passage of this legislation and the maintenance that is required. One of the walls has some structural problems there and needs to be addressed will immediately transfer to Bowser. Once this ordinance takes effect. This is a reasonable deal. It's prudent and we should move forward with this legislation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I think it is time to vote. So seeing no further comments, please call the role on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw Burgess.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez, i.
Speaker 3: Johnson.
Speaker 2: Suarez. O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Sergeant. No President narrow seven in favor one opposed.
Speaker 1: Bill pass and share with Senate. Please read a joint item number 29. Read the short title, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale and redevelopment of the former Public Safety Building block; authorizing the execution of an Amended and Restated Purchase and Sale and Development Agreement with Bosa Development US LLC, for the construction of a residential project with public parking, public open space and associated retail space; authorizing the acceptance of an easement from Bosa on that property; and authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to execute documents and take other actions in connection with this project. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_CB 119065 | Speaker 1: Bill pass and share with Senate. Please read a joint item number 29. Read the short title, please.
Speaker 6: Agenda item 29 Cancel 1190 65 authorizing and Director of Finance, Administrative Services or the director designee to execute a series of five excuse me for five year leases with existing Seattle municipal tower restaurants retail tenants can be recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Just from Burgess.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This is an extension of leases in the Seattle municipal tower across fifth Avenue. These are for retail establishments that are operating in the municipal tower and this legislation continues their leases. So we will all be able to go across the street and buy lunch there.
Speaker 1: Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill on.
Speaker 2: Bagshaw I should I thank you. Burgess Hi. Gonzalez I. Johnson Whereas I. O'Brien So I. President Harrow high aide in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed the chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services or the Director’s designee to execute a series of four five-year leases (each conferring upon the tenant a five-year option to renew) with existing Seattle Municipal Tower restaurant/retail tenants: Sin Taek Chang and Jin Won Chang d/b/a Amigos! & Beba’s; Hunjo Jung and Na Young Lee d/b/a Chew Chew’s Eatery; RVJ Corporation, Inc., a Washington corporation, d/b/a Core Bistro; and Daniel Y. Kim and Michelle H. Kim, d/b/a Treasures and Gifts; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_CB 119030 | Speaker 6: The Report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee Agenda Item 30 Constable 1190 30 Relating to cable to cable television authorizing the mayor and or the mayor's designee to enter to every new cable television franchise agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits Weight Division one LLC and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purposes of implementing or administrating the renewed franchise. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So this council bill authorizes a renewed cable television franchise between the city of Seattle and waive its legal name being waived, Division One or LLC. But we refer to it as WAIVE and the current franchise agreement expired November 17, 2017. So our office and some of your offices have been working closely with the Office of Cable, Communications and Central Staff to make sure we basically had a franchise agreement that expanded on our current community benefits and aligned with the values in our Cable Customer Bill of Rights. And so we had three different meetings regarding this issue, including an initial briefing on July 19th, and we had a public hearing on August 2nd. And again, the city clerk, just to give some description of the process, publish the notice for the August 2nd public hearing and various news outlets. And again, we complied with a fairly thorough process and that's intent and make sure we have all the input needed to make sure we have a good franchise agreement. The city and we've negotiated these through a side letter agreement for the community benefit agreements. We may require, require that the city cannot require because of regulatory issues, certain kinds of broadband issues. But we can certainly extract as many public benefits as we can in our working relationship, and that's pretty much what we did. The Office of Cable Communications conducted a community assessment at the beginning to determine the needs and interests of the city and its residents. And again, what had come out of that is the reinforced need for public, educational and governmental access of the known, otherwise known as peg channels and cable discounts to low income residents. So in in a nutshell, this particular franchise agreement we will be able to achieve for the first time residents who have waive and are eligible for our own utility discount program, the city's utility. This grant program can receive 30% discount on its basic service rate. That discounted price is about $20 per month, $20.96, to be exact. We will continue complimentary cable TV's service to city buildings and schools. Again, we have agreed to that. There will be increased support for peg channels, public education and government channels, including a new PEG fee. There will be free Wi-Fi in certain intersections, particularly around 23rd Avenue and and Cherry Street and 23rd Avenue and Union Street. We will continue to provide free cable cable modem, Internet service to qualified non-profits and has agreed to double the number of complimentary Internet service to non-profits. Currently, there's 55 active modem sites, and they will add up to five a year for a total of 100 sites. So the Information Technology Group and our community believes we have a good franchise with which to renew and the committee recommends approval or any further comments or questions about. Please call the rule on the passage of the Bill Bagshaw.
Speaker 2: Burgess.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gonzales. I Johnson. Suarez. O'Brian. Salon girl. Eight in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed in the chair will sign it. Please read a report of the Park Service Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee to enter into a renewed Cable Television Franchise Agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits with WaveDivision I, LLC; and authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the renewed franchise. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_CB 119041 | Speaker 1: The bill passed in the chair will sign it. Please read a report of the Park Service Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Park City Libraries and Waterfront Committee, June down 31 Council Bill 1190 41 relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation, authorizing the execution of a use occupancy and maintenance agreement with the Seward Park Studio, Inc. for the provisions of Visual Arts Programing Education Services at the Department of Parks Recreation, Seward Park Bathhouse Committee recommends the bill passes amended customer awareness.
Speaker 2: Thank you. As you know, this is a Seward Parkway studio lease agreement. It was in committee a few times, and after much public comment and many revisions, this is the agreement we now have in front of us. This is an eight year agreement with an option for a one year, four year extension. Turns out that they will be paying $1,700 a month, as well as a used fee of 1% of gross receipts. The use fee can be offset by providing a series of public benefits and the public benefits package. I am happy to report. We worked with the with parks on it and we were very happy with the public benefits package. It is detailed in Exhibit C of the agreement. Public benefits include partnership with a Seattle Youth Violence Prevention initiative, $5,000 worth of scholarship assistance for both youth and adults from underserved communities, and at least six events that provide free admittance to the general public. This may include art shows, lectures, classes and or workshops. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Customers. Any questions or comments about please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Bagshaw.
Speaker 0: Burgess, I.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. Johnson, Juarez. Hi. O'Brien.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Sergeant. President Arrow. Hi. Eight In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the execution of a Use, Occupancy and Maintenance Agreement with the Seward Park Clay Studio, Inc. for the provision of visual arts programming, education, and services at the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Seward Park Bathhouse. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09112017_Res 31768 | Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 6: Agenda item 32 Resolution 317 68. Related to the funding for construction, long term operations and management of public spaces on the central waterfront. Reaffirming the overall funding plan for the central waterfront improvements and the principles that will guide implementation of these improvements. Outlining the process for formation of a local improvement district and completion of fundraising plan for the lottery, and identifying a framework for an agreement with the nonprofit Friends of Waterfront Seattle to operate and manage public spaces on these Central Waterfront Committee recommends resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember worries.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is again is from Office of the Waterfront Resolution. This resolution expresses the city's commitment to evaluate future agreements in legislation that will come before council next year. These agreements and legislation include our partnership agreement with Friends of the Waterfront for Operation and Maintenance of the new Waterfront Parks and the establishment of a local improvement district around the new central waterfront. Subsequent agreements will be transmitted to council during during 2018. I want to stress that this is not creating a lid on a local improvement district. This merely outlines the legislative process to form a lead. As you know, the lid process is very detailed. It would include an assessor, a public comment, a hearing, a hearing examiner, or an appeal process, of course, a vote. And before that, a final assessment and rule. So we have many more council actions, but this mainly just outlines the legislative process to form a lid which will come before us next year.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilman Schwartz. Any comments?
Speaker 4: Councilmember Bagshaw Yes, thank you. And I really appreciate my colleague, Councilmember Suarez, just said and I want to give us all a little history just again for the record to remind us how long and how much work has been going on. On this has been not just ongoing but long going efforts. This all started back prior to the time most of us were on the council when there was a decision to build the tunnel, which gave us the opportunity to create a real central waterfront that we all want to see and be proud of. In January of 2011, we passed a resolution that created that waterfront committee in August. A year later. In 2012, we passed another resolution that adopted the waterfront concept, design and framework. And many of us went to other cities. We I personally went to Boston, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, met with leaders to learn what they have done and how they did it, that it was successful. And in that model, we followed a third party nonprofit model that we saw in Boston with Rose Kennedy Greenway, and that is we entered into a contract with our Friends of the Waterfront, and they have been friends indeed to implement and activate work on the waterfront, even during construction, and to help us create a maintenance plan. And then in 2014, many of you will remember that our voters voted the Seattle Parks District, where we got a $3.5 million ongoing budget to operate and maintain the waterfront. And then the following year, 2015, we passed an ordinance that. Piloted a maintenance project at Westlake and at Occidental Park so we could see how does it go? How does it work when we're entering into partnership, not just with our Parks Department work, but with partners such as DSA. And as we all know, major success. We saw very quickly at Westlake and Occidental having a place where everybody could go, and you felt good about being there. So we now have partners. And I want to say thanks to the Friends of the Waterfront, to our Parks Foundation, to our Alliance for Pioneer Square and the Aquarium. All these entities are helping us raise money and helping us bring to the city of Seattle all the things that we want to see down on our waterfront. And we heard during public testimony that there's been no outreach regarding the slide. And I just want to say, not only is that not true, but it's really not true. We have with our Office of Waterfront have been working closely with Boma, with DSA, with Nai up, also with residents. And also, just for the record, I have been cleared by our Ethics and Elections Office to be able to vote on this. You remember a couple of years ago, I was told as a District seven resident that I was not going to be able to do that. But they've changed the rules. And I just want to make sure all of you know that I'm going to be very much impacted by this slide should it pass. I'm at ground zero, right on air, about a block away from the waterfront. I intend to be supporting this, but the process has been long. We do not know yet how much the assessment is going to be for the properties, but we do know the general direction that the procedures, the outreach will be going in. We all will be hearing.
Speaker 2: A lot.
Speaker 4: More of that. Also, during public comment, one of our speakers said that an LED has never been used for a project like this, and that's not true. We've used and lied for our streetcars, for roads and bridges. And even our friends in Magnolia will tell you, for those who remember, Magnolia residents paid one third of the cost of that Magnolia Bridge.
Speaker 2: Go figure.
Speaker 4: If we tried to assess one third of the cost of Magnolia Bridge now, people would have a heart attack. Truly, we are we have a partnership with the city, with the state, with all of these partners. Friends have committed to raise a million, $100 million. The aquarium is going to raise a significant amount for their.
Speaker 2: Own.
Speaker 4: Their own addition. And the aquarium and I just want to say thank you to my colleagues. This is just one of the first opportunities you're going to begin to hear about the slide. Our office of the waterfront is here now. And I say thanks to the friends of the waterfront, to all of you have done really great work. I am excited about where we're going. I know I'm going to be paying an additional assessment. And frankly, this has been part of the plan since around 2010. So thank you for that. We'll be hearing a lot more. And I just are just to pass this resolution today.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilman Baxter. Any further comments, if not those in favor of adopting the resolution? Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The resolution stopped and Shah will sign it. Is there any further business governance for the Council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day.
Speaker 3: Thank you. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to funding for construction and long-term operations and management of public spaces on the Central Waterfront; reaffirming the overall funding plan for the Central Waterfront Improvements and the principles that will guide implementation of these improvements; outlining the process for formation of a Local Improvement District and completion of a fundraising plan for philanthropy; and identifying a framework for an agreement with the non-profit Friends of Waterfront Seattle to operate and manage public spaces on the Central Waterfront. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09052017_Res 31769 | Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair was silent. Just one moment. Okay. We're going to, I believe, move to the adoption of other resolutions because we amended the agenda. So I'll move to adoption of other resolutions. Please read it into the record.
Speaker 1: Agenda item 15 was Resolution 317 69 relating to the chapter on international district amending Resolution 317 54 incorporated film, Filipino Town and recognizing the important history and contributions of Filipino Americans to the city of Seattle.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So I think we understand the context, but for the viewing public, I'll just describe a little more as we did this morning during our briefing. This particular resolution is incorporating Filipino town in recognizing the important history and contributions of Filipino Americans to the city of Seattle. On July 31st, 2017, the Council adopted another resolution, a companion resolution to a ordinance which implemented mandatory housing affordability requirements in the Chinatown International District. And we reconfirmed the city's commitment to address issues in that particular neighborhood. When we passed our final version of the Resolution 31754, we incorporated feedback from a community member and ended up not including the term Manila town or Filipino town or anything along those lines in that particular resolution. And as I described the thing, the council was acting in good faith to incorporate feedback, but where we certainly dropped the ball was not really reaching out to many members in our Filipino community, members with incredible credibility and work for this city and socializing that idea with them when we finalized that previous resolution. Well, we listen to public testimony and many great leaders and community members came out and I'll just say, enlighten us. Should we say. And we took that and we took it very seriously. And so the resolution we have in front of us hopefully is responsive to the needs of the community. And I would like to just read some portions of this resolution. Again, the the whereas clause sort of describes what I just sort of described. But one particular whereas clause and I want to thank my staff for doing sort of a deep dove as, as I sort of requested then that they do to talk about some history that on in 2011, the city shall acknowledge the Filipino community's presence and vibrancy and contributions. When we when it helped fund a seven foot tall kiosk under the only in Seattle grant and proclaimed November 2012 as honoring Filipino Americans in Seattle, Chinatown and History Month. And again, we want to thank many members that are here today for for that work. In November 15th and 2015, the Filipino Community of Seattle Ink Day was another resolution proclamation that we passed in October of 2015. We had the Filipino American Heritage Month, October of 2013. We had Filipino American History Month, October 19, 2013. Filipino Youth Activities Drill Team Day on February 4th, 2012. Filipino Veterans Memorial Monument Day and October 2011 Filipino American History Month. November 5th, 2007 Filipino American Community Community of Seattle Day. In October of 2010, we had Filipino-American month and Resolution 3037. We honor the bravery and sacrifices of Filipino American soldiers who fought during World War Two and in Resolution 30808. It was a resolution support of the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2005, and in resolution 3130182, we honor many of the contributions of Asians and Pacific Islanders in our community. And all of this is embedded in this particular resolution. We're sort of trying to clean up what I think was a mistake, only to reiterate the fact that it is our responsibility, our duty to constantly use our history, I think, and the great contributions of many demographics in this this particular situation, our Filipino community to talk about what strong partners we have, what bravery and what commitment we have from this community is that makes make us all better. So we did drop the ball and we try to act feverishly and with commitment based on your leadership as partners with you. And hopefully all of this is captured in the resolution. And again, we've circulated and worked with you and certainly my honor to present this resolution for a vote in consideration this afternoon. Any further comments or questions or concerns from any of my colleagues? I'll relinquish the mic if anyone like say anything thing. We're a little rusty, so it's a little Mike Shea, so we're good. Okay. Having said that, I will. Moved for adoption here. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the resolutions that and Cheryl sign it very much. Okay, let's go back in order here and please read the first agenda item. The second agenda item, rather. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Chinatown/International District; amending Resolution 31754, incorporating Filipino Town, and recognizing the important history and contributions of Filipino-Americans to the City of Seattle. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09052017_CF 314310 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee.
Speaker 1: The Reports Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item 11 Council Sees Me Clerk Filed 3143 ten Application to Capitol Hill for Sale Development LLC for approval of a contract reason of approximately 62,000 square feet of property located 1203 East Spruce Street from the wise three multi-family residential neighborhood commercial three with 65 foot height limit. Can we recommend the application be granted as conditioned?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. This is an application to implement a contract rezone in the neighborhood surrounding Seattle University would take it from a low rise three to a neighborhood commercial, three with a 65 foot high limit and would apply our mandatory housing affordability conditions to that contract rezone as well. Happy to answer any questions of authority.
Speaker 0: Any questions of this clerk file if not those in favor of granting the application as condition? Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries in the application is granted as condition and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Agenda Item 12 Council Bill 1190 59 Relating to planning and zoning in many Chapter 23.32 Systems for code at Page 117 the official land use map to reason property located 1203 East Spruce Street from low rise three to neighboring commercial three with 65 foot height limit and accepting property using development agreement as condition of reason approval committee recommends that bill passed.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Johnson This is a companion bill. In order for us to execute the legislation that we just adopted, the court file and item 11. We also have to adopt the corresponding council bill here in item 12.
Speaker 0: Any questions?
Speaker 6: And yes, we need to move the substitute because it gets sent to us empty and now we can execute it with the substitute version now that we've adopted the item before. So I'd move to adopt the substitute version. Do we have a and is the version A version B version one something like type exhibit.
Speaker 0: C, I think.
Speaker 6: Exhibit C, thank you.
Speaker 0: Is there a second so it's been moved in second to sub substitute the exact the the executed for the UN executed properties and development agreement. All those in favor say I, I opposed the ayes have it. So now we have a an amended item council bill and I think we're ready to vote on that. Please call the role on the. Passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Swan Bank Sharna Burgess Herbold Johnson Juarez O'Bryan I President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Adan favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and serves on the amended bill. Please read the next agenda item. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Capitol Hill / First Hill development, LLC for approval of a contract rezone of approximately 62,000 square feet of a property located at 1203 E Spruce Street from Lowrise 3 (LR3) multifamily residential to Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 65 foot height limit (NC3 65) (Project No. 3018576; Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09052017_CB 118971 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and serves on the amended bill. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: Constable one one 8971 Relating to land use and zoning, many sections 22.20 6.220 2.28.0 2020 3.40 .306 and 23.90 1.002. At the center. Mr. Curtin Modified maintenance and demolition standards related to vacant buildings committee recommends bill passes amended consumer.
Speaker 6: Johnson Thanks. I promise to be a little bit less rusty on this one. We we've been approached by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection on behalf of several different constituencies that have been concerned about the number of vacant buildings in the city. In this legislation in front of us would improve security standards to keep vacant buildings more secure, allow for buildings that have been subject to an emergency order or had two or more unauthorized entries within the preceding 12 months, and received notice from Seattle Fire Department or the Police Department that the building presents a danger to the general public. Those buildings would be allowed to be demolished slightly faster than they have in the past. And it would also allow a building that hasn't been occupied as rental housing for the prior six months to be demolished, pending the master use permit from the city of Seattle. In committee, we added some important baseline information that I think made the bill much stronger. Councilmember Herbold proposed additional recitals to establish competing, not competing to establish additional policy and regulatory objectives to balance the the approach that we're trying to take with vacant buildings, as well as better describe the intent of the legislation to respond to an increase in complaints and to balance out the safety and security against the preservation of the city's housing stock. We also added a section in the bill requesting that the seven Department of Construction and inspections prepare policy options and a cost estimate for a vacant building monitoring program that would allow us to expand the program authorized by the existing code and really give us a better sense of exactly what the violation of building standards would look like in a quarterly monitoring program. So those are some the elements that I think are going to be really important. Fundamentally, this is responding, I think, to public safety concerns that we've heard from a lot of community members, while also balancing the need for us to work with nonprofit community organizations like Weld and others that are very interested in the preservation of housing stock to make sure that we're walking that fine line between having a roof over people's heads who need it and responding to safety concerns of vacant buildings that are no longer habitable and have become a real nuisance in the community. So without I'm happy to answer questions that folks have, I'm sure there are a couple of my colleagues, Councilmember Wise, and I imagine Councilmember Herbold may want to share some thoughts on the topic as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine. Just any comments? COUNCILMEMBER Worse.
Speaker 1: Thank you. First of all, I'm proud to say that we I helped co-sponsor this legislation, this vacant building legislation. I want to thank Councilmember Johnson and also central staff Kyle Friedman, the CDC director, Tom Wilson, Faith Lipson and Shawna Larson, who were very helpful in our office and answering questions. And, of course, Chief Scoggins of the fire department. The intent of this legislation is to expedite the permitting process of vacant buildings in response to a significant uptick of hazardous vacant building complaints. The previous 12 months policy has led to substantial squatter events and public safety issues which pose risk to neighbors, transient occupants, and the first responders who must enter into the building in the event of an emergency. In the last five years have been a 58% increase in citywide vacant building. Complaints in District five alone near Linton Springs and Lake City neighborhoods have been particularly hit hard by vacant building occurrences. In committee, I introduced an amendment to shorten the vacancy period to six months of waiting time prior to demolition. Every month the building lays vacant. There is an exponential impact on the public safety and health of the transient occupants and neighbors. This legislation is a huge win to address our city's imminent public nuisance and health and safety needs. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Words from Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues on the Council on the plus committee and the folks who aren't on the committee but attended. And working with me on some of the amendments that passed, i, I, I am concerned that there is a, a balance that was struck with the old approach between valuing housing that still has a useful life. And public safety interests were we were replacing what was an objective valuation approach of on on actually looking at what the with the replacement value of the property is with an approach that may be a little bit more subjective. Time will tell when the development of the directors rules that talk about how it is that speed and the fire department identify properties as as being imminent safety hazards. You know Stsci identified this the current approach, the current valuation approach is a barrier to demolishing abandoned properties. And, you know, there are over 250 abandoned properties that DCI is aware of. Of all of the districts in Seattle, District One has the greatest number of them. And so I was really concerned when I contacted DCI and asked them how many abandoned buildings did they have on file that they were trying to do an evaluation process with and they were unable to do so and thus removed them. And they reported to me that. The vast majority of those 250 properties actually had not received any evaluation, so the SDR hadn't even attempted to use the process. Of the six that were ordered for demolition in 2016, all were successful. So in each of the six times in 2016 of over over 250 buildings, they were able to successfully demolish and meet that existing standard in all six times. I'm concerned that the current proposal might reward disinvestment and an abandonment. The reality is, is that a property that still has useful life can go from being potentially safe housing to really housing that is dangerous and unfit within a course of a year of being abandoned. And I feel the reason for that is that we aren't doing enough to monitor our existing vacant properties and hold property owners responsible for maintaining those properties. For that reason, I'm really looking forward to receiving information from SDC early next year to work on how how we can make more robust and more frankly effective our existing vacant building monitoring program. In addition, I'm looking forward to receiving from SDC information from them of of the approximately 250 buildings that they know that are vacant now, how many of them are likely to meet the new basic standard of having one emergency order in two unauthorized entries? And then also what their process is going to be to develop standards for the fire and police departments to recommend buildings that need removed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Herbold, any further questions or comments? Okay. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: So what I think Sharna Burgess Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brian President Harrell High Ayton favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and show so please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 22.206.200, 22.208.020, 23.40.006, and 23.91.002 of the Seattle Municipal Code; to modify maintenance and demolition standards related to vacant buildings. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_09052017_CF 314357 | Speaker 0: Bill passes and show so please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Jan 914 Clearfield 314 357 Petitioner, West Coast Self-Storage and General Street Services, a Washington LLC for the vacation of a portion 29th Avenue, Southwest and Southwest City View Street. The committee recommended the the petition be granted as conditioned consumer.
Speaker 4: Brian, thank you. Just to orient folks, the parcel we're talking about is immediately north of the west Seattle Bridge along Harbor Avenue. It's between Harbor Avenue and Terminal five Port of Seattle property. And this would vacate Southwest City View Street and 29th Avenue Southwest. These are leftover remnants of a network of streets that used to exist on Terminal five, currently used for parking and common rail lines for Nucor Steel. The vacation proposal would allow the development of a self-storage warehouse in exchange of public benefit would include improvements to the the right away, the sidewalk in the trail, relocating some light poles the currently obstruction and it came up during committee that are actually after committee. It was highlighted by a trail advocate from West Seattle. Concerns about the proximity of the building to the trail and its sightlines can make it difficult for vehicles entering and exiting the what that doing a little research we realized there was a mistake in the presentation. Those concerns had largely been addressed already and the building had intended to set back from the trail to allow better sightlines for safety. But during the presentation in committee, the the image, the graphic that they showed was an older version that showed the building built right up to the street. So I believe Councilmember Herbold has a substitute that would incorporate those changes.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, Thank you. I move to amend clerk file 314357 by substitute substituting version two for version one of the conditions of the city council.
Speaker 0: Second has been moved in, seconded to amend the clerk file by submitting version two for version one. All those in favor of the amendment both i. I oppose. The ayes have it. So that's the amend the amendment has passed. Councilmember Herbold, you want to explain it a little more?
Speaker 1: And I think Councilmember O'Brien did a great deal, a great job explaining the difference. The condition that we just supported in amendment is 100% in line with the recommendation of the Design Commission to consider different design options to improve sightlines for the vehicular exit in order to enhance safety within the public realm. Don Brubeck of. West Seattle bike connections brought to our attention that the action taken in committee was not was not consistent, and that we needed to take further action to correct it. So I thank him for that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any closing comments, Councilmember O'Brien, are we ready to file the file?
Speaker 4: Just mention this again is for the public. This is a conditional approval. So assuming this passes out of committee, the project would be allowed to proceed. And then once the project is complete, they would come back to the full council demonstrating that they met the conditions at which point we would ultimately do the actual street vacation.
Speaker 0: Very good. So those in favor of granting the petition as amended and conditioned vote. I. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries petition is granted as condition and the chair was signed the conditions of the City Council. Okay. That concludes our formal agenda. Is there any further business to come before the council? Councilwoman Herbold.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd like to request permission for an absence on Monday, September 18th.
Speaker 0: It's been moved its second and that Councilmember Herb will be excused for September 18th. All those in favor say I. I suppose the ayes have it. And I would like to be excused from for October 2nd and October 9th. It's been moved and seconded. Councilperson Harold Excuse for October 2nd and October 9th. All those in favor say i. I. Maybe an astronaut says no. All those no, no. But any further business come before the council. With that, we'll stand and join everyone. Have a great afternoon. | Clerk File (CF) | Petition of West Coast Self-Storage and General Steel Services of Washington, LLC for the vacation of a portion of 29th Avenue Southwest and Southwest City View Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08142017_CB 119036 | Speaker 6: Into the agenda item for council bill 1190 36 authorizes the CEO, general manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a contract with Cedar Grove composting incorporation for organic waste processing services and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Compost processing has been performed by.
Speaker 3: Our for.
Speaker 5: Espoo under service contracts with Lenz Enterprises and Pacific Cleanup Washington. These contracts began in April 2014 and continue to March 2020 with optional extensions to March 2024. In 2015, processing operations at Pacific Clean were shut down due to new agricultural regulations, and the company's share of city organic waste has been diverted to a backup facility. Cedar Grove Espoo initiated a competitive process for successor services last year. The utility received a competitive proposal in January from Cedar Grove composting and has been negotiating with Pacific Clean and Cedar Grove for successful financial and operational transition. This legislation would authorize a new processing contract with Cedar Grove to ensure clean continuity, clean service continuity, while the utility also pursues recovery of outstanding obligations from Pacific Clean. The new contract would continue to March 2020, with options to extend to 2024. Lenz Enterprise will continue to successfully process their share of city organic waste through March 2020 or beyond, if desired by the city.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Hold any further questions or comments from this legislation. Please call the roll on the pastor of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 3: High Bagshaw.
Speaker 1: Burgess I.
Speaker 6: Gonzales.
Speaker 1: Johnson.
Speaker 2: Juarez. Herbold II. President Harrell I. Aden favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chose. Sign it. Please read agenda item number five the short title.
Speaker 6: Agenda Item five Constable 1190 52 relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing general manager CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire except on record on behalf of the City of Seattle, both temporary and permanent property rights from owners of property, the committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the CEO/General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute a contract with Cedar Grove Composting, Inc., for organic waste processing services; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08142017_CB 119052 | Speaker 6: Agenda Item five Constable 1190 52 relating to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing general manager CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire except on record on behalf of the City of Seattle, both temporary and permanent property rights from owners of property, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Herbold This ordinance would authorize the city you general manager CEO to acquire temporary and permanent easements for the ship Canal Water Quality Project. The easements would be along the alignment of the plan combined sewage conveyance and storage tunnel between 24th Avenue Northwest and Chushul Avenue Northwest in Ballard and Inner Lake Avenue, North and North 35th Street in Wallingford, as well as property abutting the 24th Avenue Northwest Pier in Ballard. And the combined cost of these easements is $1.5 million.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. HERBOLD Any questions or comments? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Make sure. Burgess Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Johnson whereas I Herbold I President Harrell I in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass and share with Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to acquire, accept, and record on behalf of The City of Seattle both temporary and permanent property rights from owners of property located along the alignment of the planned combined sewage conveyance and storage tunnel between 24th Avenue NW and Shilshole Avenue NW in Ballard and Interlake Avenue North and North 35th Street in Wallingford and property abutting the 24th Avenue NW pier in Ballard, that are necessary or convenient to construct, operate, and maintain the Ship Canal Water Quality Project and 3rd Avenue West Water Main Replacement Project, through negotiation or eminent domain (condemnation); placing the real property rights acquired under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities and designating the property rights acquired for utility and general municipal purposes; authorizing payment of all other costs associated with acquisition; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08142017_CB 118996 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions about this appointment? Those in favor of confirming the appointment. Please vote i i. Those opposed vote. No. The motion carries. The appointment is confirmed. Please read the report of the Parks. Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee.
Speaker 6: The Report of the Park's Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item seven Council 118996 relating to the Department of Parks Recreation authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with Marina Management LLC for mortgage improvements, maintenance and operation of the City Sails Public, Lesh II and Lakewood March facilities on Lake Washington and in many ordinance 124 927 , which adopted the 2016 budget to lift a proviso budget imposed on the Department of Parks Recreation's Capital Improvement Program budget in 2016 for the March Facilities Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Worse.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is the came out of unanimously out of parks. And so I want to begin with some information and some little background information for those of you who hadn't had a chance to actually read this lease. The Lake Washington mortgage agreement is for the management of public mortgages on Lake Washington. These public mortgages were operated by a contractor for over 34 years and have only been operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation since October 2015. So respectfully, two years in 2013, a request for proposal was released and Marina Management LLC was chosen as a successful proposal. The lease agreement provides for a 20 year agreement with up to two successive year successive tenure extensions. The superintendent of the Department of Parks and Recreation will provide written approval of the capital improvements. The superintendent will also provide approval of slip rent increases, slips of 30 feet and under will have a rent cap of $12 adjusted by CPI. All other slip increases will have to be rationalized with a market study and approved by the superintendent. The tenant marina management must give 60 day notice to the superintendent to permit or deny rate increase. What's more important is that we are in this agreement looking at public ask to access will be a key component of this new agreement, creating more opportunity for non boat owners to enjoy access to Lake Washington. I want to make a few comments based on the lease and some of the issues that have arisen and particularly address some of the people that have. And thank you for showing up for public comment and all the other hearings that we've had in the actual agreement. It is on our sixth draft. We've had three committee hearings, public comment. We've met privately with the community groups. I want to thank central staff and legal for assisting us. And my understanding is this issue has been active for at least five years. The history which I had included in the lease is that since the 1930s, 1931 has always been operated by a private operator or company from 1981 to 2015. We again had a private operator that was so from 1981 to 2015. That's 34 years. And then, of course, the last couple of years, Department of Parks and Recreation has been attempting to operate these two marinas. I want to state that we did address the rental rates and made sure that we had notice and that capital improvements were done before any kind of rates could be increased. My understanding is that the on board people will be grandfathered in. So we addressed the issue of displacement. We also made sure that the tenant cannot raise rates until all capital improvements are completed. And inside the lease agreement, we are subject to DNR leases which supersede, of course, this lease. I should note that no land is being sold nor land is being transferred at or change from park use to any other use. In addition or in conclusion. I think we should note that this is indeed a partnership. It is not anything new, and it's not anything we haven't done before. I'm learning in this committee we have many public private partnerships with many of the park assets and all the other properties that the city owns. I would note that Councilmember Bagshaw, I believe, who is part of our committee, had a few comments to make as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you guys for being back, Joe.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. So for my colleagues, this legislation is something that I actually was working on five years ago when I was part chair and we had an RFP that the community really didn't like. And we went back to the drawing board and it took several years. We went through a project advisory team receiving their input as well. And for those of you who have been to Lesh, you know that the docks in the finger piers out there are impossibly bad. To say that they are sinking is an understatement. You cannot walk on parts of them. Some of the others who are we still have small boats moored are in just deplorable condition. We needed to do something and it was million dollar, millions of dollars that Parks did not have. So we entered into or proposed to be entering into this agreement that will be financially sustainable, where we will have assistance not only in the. Rebuilding but maintaining the asset going forward. Parks, as Councilmember Suarez pointed out, will continue to own the property. It's not like we're transferring property. We are getting assistance from the private sector with people who are experts in doing this to build and then operate. We have heard from a handful of people here today. I do want to say thank you. You have been very, very committed to your community. And I want you to know that we've heard loud and clear what your concerns are with Lakewood Mortgage in particular. I also want to acknowledge that we've heard from dozens and dozens of families that have urged us to move forward with this. They are have small sailboats. They've got small boat, but small things like this. Also, there are a lot of kayakers who would like to have access to the water. That is what we're trying to accomplish here. And as was pointed out already, the parks will review and approve the lease rates. This is not something where it will be dictated to us, but we will make sure that the rates are consistent with fair market value and that families will continue to have access to this. Both marinas and something came up last week that I pointed out. I think there is an opportunity for the community to stay involved. Lots of concerns. I heard about speedboats and jetskis and I wanted to use as a model what San Juan County did in the mid nineties where they actually put an end to jetskis in and around Friday Harbor and places where there were noise was being extremely annoying but also impacting the orcas that were residents around there. I think this is an opportunity for us to work with King County. Should the community continue to want to be involved in this? There's something we can do there and that there is a model from which we can follow. So with that, I just urge my colleagues to proceed with this, to vote yes for this marina. I see our superintendent, Susan Aguirre, in the front row. We have put them through their paces. So thank you for being here and joining us today.
Speaker 2: President Harrell, can I just say one comment? I'm sorry. Absolutely. I'll just wrap it up and I apologize in which.
Speaker 0: I have some comments as well.
Speaker 2: But I know you do. I just want to say this. After six variations of this lease and working with legal and working with parks and work with marine management and thank you, Joe, Brian, for meeting meeting with you and giving us a lot of great feedback. Our goal here for Seward Park is that this is a community asset and it should be open to all of the public that this is everybody's marina, that the marina belongs to the public and not just people that own boats. And that is our main goal here. When we were plowing through the maps, the lease in the agreements and the attachments, including the parking lot. And so when we look back at the history from the throes up into the fifties and then up to 91 in 1981, I think it's fair to say that. And there's nothing wrong with that, that particular communities did enjoy the lake and access and boating. But now that we're in an era of race and social justice and access and everybody being able to enjoy all of Seattle's benefits, that was really our goal, is to make sure that we open this up and that we partner with somebody that can make that a reality. We did not enter into this lease lightly, and again, that was our main goal. Here it is and certainly wasn't to destroy or displace or not take into account the wonderful individuals and families that have enjoyed their slips in this lake since the 1950s. But to open it up to all of Seattle's residents and beyond. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'd make a few comments here. And I again, I want to thank Councilman Waters and Bagshaw and the Committee for and that I sit on for really trying to do as much of a deep dove as possible in reviewing the lease and sort of reviewing the record. I, I can't support this legislation. We'll be voting against it for, quite candidly, for a variety of reasons. While we're not conveying the property, it is a 20 year lease with an option, I think two options at ten years an option. So we're certainly tying it up for quite a long time. And you know, I look at this from two perspectives. One is what's in the city's best interests and what's in the community's best interest. And hopefully those don't mutually exclude one another from the city's perspective. If you look at that, you know, I asked during the committee, what's the value of these two assets? No one ever looked at each other. And I said, well, if I just use the the amount of capital investments, but the both the city and marina management, the privately owned firm that will put into it there, they're allegedly putting in around 8.2 billion. I see. Allegedly or theoretically, because if you look at the lease, there's really not a dollar amount that they stipulate to investing. It's there's a an attachment that describes the kinds of capital improvements. But we don't know from this lease what the amount of capital improvements will be. But let's say it's 8,000,008.2, which is the number that those that were shared at the committee table and the city will invest approximately 7.2. So roughly, if you just add those two and say this assets worth 15 million plus what the city receives is about $25,000 annually. 25,000 on a $15 million asset to me is not a good rate of return, nor is it a prudent investment. I go a step further to look at that. We have been receiving anywhere upwards north of 350 to 400000 over the years. And I've heard Parks say, well, we're not in the business of renting a marina. That's not our core competency, so to speak. And I push back on that by saying, you know, we're we're port city, we're surrounded by water. We regulate houseboat rates and rental rates in Lake Union. We should know this line of business should should be part of our fabric as a city, as is a port city at that. And so I look at, again, the numbers where even at this stage of the legislation where we can't see specifically what the new slip configuration would be, we can't say with specificity how much capital improvements will be done. I can't say when you look at the rate of return, this is a good deal for the city that we are tying up for 20 million to 20 years plus now. We've have some great public private partnerships that have worked for the benefit of the community and for the city. And I applaud and have supported these. When we put this out for an RFP, you may recall that these two are these two marinas to to lump them together. I think someone does each of those marinas a disservice. Less shy is literally falling in the water. Lakewood is not in dire straits, is is less shy. And you may recall that we did put in about 3.8 million in the budget to fix up to fix Lesher. And what we then did some time after that was we allowed Parks instead of using that for capped repairs to less shy to sort of leverage that for this RFP. And through that RFP process, we listened to the community and come up with a plan well out of that work and that was good work. We only really had one significant responder to the RFP. I think that some of the communities and some of the people that oppose it put together sort of a response. And I don't even know if that was for both marinas, but we really had one commercial response. And to me that should have been a flag that perhaps we need to re approach or reevaluate our approach to this whole dilemma that we found ourselves in. And it's a very important to realize that we found ourselves in this dilemma because the city neglected to invest the revenues we received for year after year after year north of $350,000 into the marinas. So I think this is a shortcut. This is a shortcut to tie up this land with a very, very minimal return on our investment to a private entity. And I don't think that that's good policy. I would also suggest that when you have one bid and you do not have an independent consultant or an economist or anyone really look at the land value and whether this is a good business deal for the city. And I don't believe because I asked several questions about that when you don't have that kind of record to suggest this is good business, that it wouldn't be ready for legislation. And I think that's the situation we find ourselves in now in terms of the community. I don't think anyone's arguing that this should be open, this should not be open to the public, and it's not a public gem. And I think that the community understands that. But in Lakewood as an example, most of the residents are from 98118. You heard testimony and repeated testimony that these aren't rich, wealthy, affluent folks who just have money just to spend. You have a lot of working class people who have affordable that are willing to pay affordable rates, and they're not trying to compare that to private mortgages in other parts of the city. So I won't support this legislation because I think we have an incredible gem here and we're not doing the hard work to really look at what makes best sense for the city and for the community. And we sort of took a shortcut by privatizing this arrangement at a very nominal rate of return. Again, 15 million getting 25,000 per year, which is significantly lower than even what we were getting when we were running it ourselves. So that's my position, particularly as a District two person is very familiar with this area and the other one is of course in the other district, but I know them both. So that's that's my opinion. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Couple questions. First, clarifying question for you. Councilmember Harrell or Council President Harrell, are you saying that our our rate of return historically has been around $350,000 a year? In your back of the envelope calculation is it's it's looking like $25,000 a year with this.
Speaker 1: Deal.
Speaker 0: Correct. That 380,000 maybe. We asked this question during committee how much revenues are receiving now. We've we had a small operator and then we managed it ourselves. And I want to say upward of 350 to 400000 under the new lease that you're being asked to consider now will receive roughly around $25,000. It may go up as rents go up and rents will go up. So it'll increase, but only slightly based on the rent increase, but roughly 25,000.
Speaker 5: And that's my my second question as it relates to the rent increases. Chair Whereas you spoke to the fact that there can't be any rent increases until the capital improvements are made and that those parks superintendent has some oversight of rent increases. I was wondering if, one, you could speak to what constraints the park superintendent is under in approving requested rent and increases in two. Are there any expectations in.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 5: In the agreement that relate specifically to the number of slips? That would be another concern I would have is if under this new agreement, they were allowed to reduce the total number of slips.
Speaker 3: Available for for public.
Speaker 2: Use. Well, maybe you should it to my committee for the last six months, but I will answer that, first of all. Number one, we actually changed the conditions in the lease that the superintendent first of all, number one, we changed the first and most important thing is that nobody's slip increase, rent increase would occur unless all capital improvements were done. And there's an attachment that has a list of all the capital improvements. The second piece is, as you said, and that's a very good question because that was brought up by many people that came and gave public comment, is that the increases will be done if their lessee slips of 30 feet and under will have a cap of $12 adjusted by CPI. Some may argue that's rent control with people, with boats. All other slip increases will have to be rationalized with a market study. So what we did in this was council. Harrell's concern is that the tenant wouldn't just be allowed to just raise the rent. They would have to show the superintended a market, study a reasonable rates and give them the tenant would have to give the superintendent 60 days notice that this is what they intend. And then the superintendent can make a decision whether or not to allow the tenant to raise the rent. And the superintendent cannot unreasonably deny or delay the tenant's request. And then Councilmember Bagshaw made sure that there were particulars in the lease so that people have an opportunity to voice their concerns about raising raising the rent. And again, the people that live on board, I understand, will be grandfathered in. And as far as and I just want to share this and just briefly how we got here. And again, I wasn't here five or six years ago because that's how long this has been going on. The city and marine management will partner to support the renovation projects, which we estimate will actually be on an estimate between 16 and $18 million, which we just don't have the money for. There's a reason why for decades and decades, we've had private operators managing these marinas, not the city. We've only been doing it for a couple of years. The partnership leverages the city's 3.8 million capital improvement allocation for the mortgages, increasing the scope of the improvements. So management will pay for all operating expenses related to the management and operation of the marinas. Re management is responsible for paying annual DNR lease payments, lease excise taxes and other taxes and penalties, including the lease and marine management, will pay rent in the amount of 3% of gross revenues. Now, this is a 20 term lease, and what I understand from legal that that's not uncommon. As you know, in the state of Washington, the the there is no. One of the few states in this country that allow private ownership of Thailand's. However, in this case, the state of Washington owns all the tidelands we own. Basically the effect not physical fixtures, but the buildings, which, as you can see from the pictures, if you looked at, are completely dilapidated as well as the docks. So this was what the agreement came to. Hence six drafts of it. And I want to add to that, we did take into the account about displacement and the DNR leases and we did make sure that we worked with legal and the superintendent on how what the process would be for people that are there, that people aren't displaced. And this is what we came up with.
Speaker 3: One other just answer to your question about the number of slips that's in attachment F to the lease agreement. And let's just take less shy as an example. You'll see reading down that there are 52 spaces for 25 foot slips. The same with 30. And then there are a couple of lines there for 60 foot slips. That's a pretty big boat to have a 60 foot slip, but those can be divided into throws or even two tows if they want to have some smaller boats on there. So in attachment, if you will see that those are the minimum set, what are expected, they may change as the configuration is put in play, but it gives that gives park some flexibility.
Speaker 0: So since we're all answering the question, I'll sort of give my answer as well. But I think what's critical about all these answers is, again, and this is not meant as a criticism of any of my colleagues, I just think it is what it is that the lease and even the attachment, these are aspirations, but it's not very specific. And I know that there's been emails to suggest that this slips and one of the marinas will drop from 138 to 1 or two. That's a those are very specific numbers, and I haven't seen anything to refute that. So again, I ask very simple questions like, when will the repairs be done? What's the schedule to be done? And if you ask central staff that, I think he would tell you he can't tell based on these documents because that's how scanty they are, in my opinion. Again, I think there's an enormous amount of sort of good faith in this lease, but I don't think we're here to make decisions on good faith. We're here to look at both the letter of the lease and the policy goals we're trying to achieve. And I say this particularly in terms of public private partnerships, particularly one that so long and again, this is these are, you know, I'm saying 15 to $16 million worth of assets and huge opportunities, by the way, when we're talking about particularly reaching residents in 98118, if you ask me, well, what would you how would you like to proceed? I'd like to fix like less shy and with capital improvements and really start from scratch on what the design to look from Lakewood. But you don't even have to start from scratch because all of that good community work has been done. But again, to sort of turn the keys over for 20 years, I don't think is a prudent way to go, given these very simple questions like, well, what exactly will the number of slips be? Because there's too many ambiguities, I think, in the attachments, because they're not we're not bound to the attachment. There's still there's still a lot of wiggle room.
Speaker 5: I have one last question that gets memorable. The two tenure extension options, we refer to them as options. But there if I if I'm correct, they're only options for the tenant. We we don't have the ability to say no. If the tenant wants to once the two tenure extensions. Is that.
Speaker 2: Correct? My understanding is that we do have the ability to say, well, cancel it.
Speaker 0: Yes, I could. Why don't I move to suspend the rules? Why don't I spin rules and. Mr. Goodenough, would you like to just answer that one question?
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: On the options.
Speaker 1: Ranga Knight Council Central Staff. So it is the option of the tenants to it. As long as the tenant has completed the capital improvements and is not in default of the lease, then they have the option to exercise the ten year extension options.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr.. Goodnight. Uh, okay. Well, we've got sort of Councilmember Bryan, please. Yeah, I'll.
Speaker 1: Just be brief. Council resident here. I share your concerns and your comments, and so I will also be joining you in voting no on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other concerns or questions at this point? Councilman, where did you want to see any closing remarks before we vote? Thank you. That's picture. Okay. Just let me get my notes. Okay. So we have a bill that came out of committee, so please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: No. No.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: You've got a choice as to. Who knows?
Speaker 2: Hi. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Burgess Hi.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez Johnson Whereas I.
Speaker 3: Herbold No. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: Nope.
Speaker 2: Five in favor, three opposed.
Speaker 0: Okay, I'll kick. Please read the next agenda item into the record. I'm sorry. The bill passed and Cher was silent. Thank you for that. And please read the next gen item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with Marina Management, L.L.C. for moorage improvements, maintenance, and operation of the City of Seattle’s public Leschi and Lakewood moorage facilities on Lake Washington; and amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 budget, to lift a budget proviso imposed on the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Capital Improvement Program budget in 2016 for the moorage facilities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119046 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair assignment Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda item to cancel Bill 1190 46 relating to automated fixed camera revenue.
Speaker 0: Customer in Burgess.
Speaker 7: Is this the this is the ordinance on the traffic? Yes. Right. Yes. This is an ordinance that allows for the use of city traffic ordinance or traffic camera fines and fees to be used for a one time expenditure to the Seattle school district to pay for transportation related services, specifically busses to shift from a three tier bell system to a two tier bell system.
Speaker 0: And I see why you hesitated. Because I was actually supposed to speak to that, right?
Speaker 7: Yes, you are. But I was happy to cover for you.
Speaker 0: As described by Councilmember Burgess, and you didn't push back right away. So I think we've again, this is follow up legislation accountable 118999 that we pass on June 14th, where we basically put a proviso in, as Councilmember Burgess stated, to appropriate $2.3 million solely for SDR to fund one time only transportation services for us out of public schools and maybe spent for no other purpose. And again, in order to use school safety, traffic and pedestrian improvement funds, this legislation allows us to amend our code to allow for that bus transportation. You know, during during the discussions, we sort of made it clear that, you know, the policy regarding Bill Times three, tier two tier is solely responsibility of public schools and they do furnish this with information. School transportation funding is the responsibility of school district safety. And I think based on our discussion this morning during our briefing, we reiterated the fact that the state must fully fund basic education, which includes transportation costs. But but at the end of the day, we also are incredibly concerned about safety, and we make a lot of investments towards safety. And so that's what this investment is all about. And so I would ask that the full council support it. And again, I want to thank you for your earlier support when we sort of describe this legislation. Thank you. Cast members. Sorry about that. Any questions? Okay. I'll move to pass Council Bill. QUESTION Yes, I see a couple of hands. Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 2: I do have a question. As I only became aware of this legislation today, I would be interested to find out. And I understand that we probably don't have this information before us right now. How the allowance of 2.3 million in traffic safety camera funds will impact, if at all, plans for safe routes to schools projects in the in the upcoming year. This Council has identified as a priority that 20% of automated camera enforcement dollars go directly to infrastructure projects in communities that improve pedestrian and bike safety. And if we're going to end up with a reduction in those projects for for next year, I think we should prepare perhaps in our budget discussions for for how to supplement those those pressing needs.
Speaker 0: I think I'll take your question sort of a point and a point that I would agree that obviously we don't have excess money just sitting around for these kinds of one time investments. And as we get ready to scrub our budget here and we look at our safety investments, we will look at this in conjunction with the other safe roads who are trying to invest. So I think your point is well taken. Any other accounts parents want to respond to Councilmember Herbert's concern? I think many of us do share that concern. Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you and thanks. Thank you for raising that. I think one option we have this fall is to tap a greater percentage of those funds.
Speaker 2: Interested in doing.
Speaker 7: That. Exactly. But I also would just say to you colleagues that next year, a year from now, when you're asked to renew this one time funding and make it permanent, you should remember this discussion. And this is one time investment to help the school district because of the confusion around the McCleary funding. And I would just encourage us next year when I'm not here, that the city is not in the city government is not in the business of funding the school district for items that are in the definition of basic education.
Speaker 0: And Councilman Burgess, we invite you to public comment. Succession drop.
Speaker 7: Now, here, I'll come down and get my 2 minutes. Okay. You'll be brief, though, but I'll be brief.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Any further comments? If not your private? I will just. No, there's not. It's not a loan. It's a one time grant, if you will. Okay. I moved to pass Council Bill 119046. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez, O'Brian, Bagshaw, Burgess, Gonzalez, Herbold Johnson. I eight in favor and unopposed to the.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and sure will sign it. Please read the next agenda. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to automated fixed camera revenue; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget; changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the 2017 Budget; and amending Sections 5.81.010 and 5.82.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119019 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and sure will sign it. Please read the next agenda.
Speaker 3: Item 3.2 The Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item three Council Bill 1190 19 relate to city employment, commonly referred to the second quarter 2017 Employment Ordinance establishing new title center salaries designated positions as exempt from Civil Service Status, Returning positions and Civil Service Status and ratifying confirmed research in prior acts, all by a two thirds vote of the City Council Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Each quarter we get an ordinance that moves positions from the civil service off the civil service rules, makes them exempt from civil service rules and procedures, and then sometimes that adds positions back. This particular ordinance moves five positions off of the civil service status, and it returns one position to civil service status.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmembers. Any further questions? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez O'Brian Bagshaw Burgess Gonzales Herbold Johnson President Harrell.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill pass the chair will sign it please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: Agenda item four Accountable 1190 20 Relating to city employment adopting in 2017 citywide position list. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Second Quarter 2017 Employment Ordinance; establishing new titles and/or salaries; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; returning positions to Civil Service status; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119023 | Speaker 0: The bill passed the chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda item and you can read the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item five Council Bill 1190 23 authorizing in 2017 acceptance of funding from non city sources committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: That's my Burgess.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This is the second quarter grant acceptance ordinance. This receives $4.7 million from external sources. For example, there's $2.2 million from the King County Flood Control District to be used in Longfellow Creek in West Seattle. There's also $550,000 from King County awarded to our city Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs to provide civil legal assistance for individuals with matters before the federal immigration courts. This is King County money that's being paired with $1 million from the city of Seattle that Councilmember Gonzales advocated for. And this is King County's contribution. And then there's $490,000 from sound transit to assist the fire department in inspections, planning and safety work related to the East Link Light Rail Project.
Speaker 0: Get any further comments or questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Whereas O'Brian, Bagshaw Burgess I Gonzalez Herbold High Johnson, President Harrell I 18 favorite unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate Please read agenda item number six and you can read the short title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2017, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Education and Early Learning, Department of Parks and Recreation, Human Services Department, Law Department, Information Technology Department, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, and Seattle Public Utilities to accept specified grants and private funding and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119022 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate Please read agenda item number six and you can read the short title.
Speaker 3: Agenda item six Cancel 1190 22 Amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, including 2017 through 2022 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Burgess, Thank you. This is the second quarter budget supplemental ordinance. We do this each quarter as we go through the year. This makes adjustments to the city budget that we adopted for this year. Last fall, for example, there's a $10 million allocation to Seattle City Light to respond to customer requests for utility connections and pole attachments that will be repaid to the city through fees that city light charges. We also in committee amended the ordinance to approve to video technology specialist for the police department. We had approved funding for these positions last fall but because the body worn video camera. Jack was not ready to be implemented at the time. We did not give authority for the positions. Now that that program is moving forward, this gives authority for the police department to hire these two video technology specialists. There's also a $75,000 ad from Councilmember O'Brien to assist the Magnuson Park Community Center.
Speaker 5: What's wrong, Councilmember Johnson?
Speaker 7: Excuse me. Councilmember Johnson. That's right. You weren't here, but it was Councilmember Johnson. Sorry. My apologies.
Speaker 2: Being Councilmember Wise.
Speaker 7: And assist with the Magnuson Park Community Center and some services there for primarily for young people and children there. And then there's funding for the city auditor who is awarding a contract to the Seattle King County Health Department to assist with baseline research and evaluation that needs to be done for the city's new sweetened beverage tax, which takes effect in January. This baseline work is necessary to establish a baseline for something to be compared to. As we move forward with the tax and this $480,000 for that work will be repaid out of the proceeds from the beverage tax.
Speaker 0: Any questions or comments? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Just want to say a quick thank you to my colleagues for supporting that amendment coming out of committee. Folks in the park have continued to identify issues that they would like the city council to keep on our radar screen. This was a first opportunity for us to identify some short term wins, which included supporting services for expanded hours at the community center, as well as supportive services through funding through the Human Services Department. I also want to bring to the public's attention that there was funding in this proposed second quarter supplemental to have the Facilities and Services Department hire a consultant Round Charles Street Campus Development Plan, which would effectively start the discussions that many in the Chinatown International District asked us to do for several years now and consider disposition of public lands on the Charles Street campus for redevelopment for affordable housing and community ownership. So two really good adds as part of the discussion. Looking forward to voting yes.
Speaker 0: Very good. And for the comments. Caspar Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to thank the City Budget Office for including some funding in the second quarter supplemental that I became aware of the need for during our discussions in the first quarter supplemental. During that time, I discovered that there was a 2000 Seattle Department of Transportation's study that identified 24 High Priority Street segments, a high priority for landslide mitigation, and discovered that 17 years later, we're only seven on on the list. I raised this as an issue and it did not does not require any sort of amendment did not require an amendment within within committee because the city budget office added 1.37 million into the second quarter supplemental to address several of these High Priority Street segments that are on this list of 24. The six different segments that this this funding will now go towards towards addressing. And we also have a commitment from the city budget office to get us back on track with completing the other high priority segments on this 2000 year study. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Excellent. No further comments. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Maurice O'Brien. Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzales, Herbold II Johnson, President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate Please read item seven through nine. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, including the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (commonly known as the 2nd quarter supplemental); changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels, and from various funds in the Budget; adding new projects; revising project allocations for certain projects in the 2017-2022 CIP; creating both new exempt and non-exempt positions; making cash transfers between various City funds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119029 | Speaker 3: Short title The Report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee Agenda Item ten Council Vote 1190 29 relating to the Technology Matching Fund Program, making allocations and authorizing implementation of certain technology matching fund projects in 2017, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So this is our annual technology matching fund legislation, and it's always an honor to look at these organizations and award them funds. And it's sort of a process I'll describe in a moment here about what our See Tab does. But again, this is a meaningful opportunity for us to make community investments intended to address the equity gaps and the digital gap that I think many of us know very well. This year's projects are projected to provide more than 600,000 community matching resources, and they will reach over 6000 residents, 3600 immigrants and refugees, 1500 seniors, 1100 people with disabilities, and other residents and workers throughout our city. So let me give a few highlights of these great projects. And again, I want to thank Councilmembers Gonzales and Suarez for, again, a very meaningful discussion at the table. The Ethiopian community in Seattle will upgrade their computer lab to provide Ethiopian communities with basic computer literacy classes for seniors and after school computer sciences classes for their youth. The Coalition for Refugees from Burma are awarded funds to provide computer literacy classes at Bailey Elementary and the Seattle World School and offer parent technology mentoring classes to support skill building for parents and students and community members. The Education for All Group and District One is a group that will focus on digital citizenship and communication project. It will establish a computer lab for East Africans offering workshops in computer usage, productivity and software and Internet citizenship. For Life Cares, an organization in District three Technology Access Enhancement Project. There they will expand the mobile lab to teach technology classes at nine more Seattle Housing Authority buildings. The Horn of Africa Services. They'll enhance East Africans access to technology. They'll upgrade a computer lab. This so serves over 200 East African community members and train home care home child care providers who use computers to improve their business and financial operations. Keen on community health care. And they're going to expand the senior friendly kitchen on Smart Lab that a senior friendly technology lab designed to enable Asian seniors in my that it's age 60 plus to increase technology and health literacy to prevent social isolation and increase access to health care and digital resources. Launch Code. They will provide 20 week computer programing classes that enables people with barriers to employment and technology to gain highly marketable tech skills. The North Seattle Boys and Girls Club Branch actually the Wallingford Boys and Girls Club in District four. They'll install new 14 desktop computer lab for 250 low income youth to use for homework help and hands on learning activities. One America. They will focus on English and digital skills for citizenship. I'll engage limited English proficient adult immigrants in the Chinatown ID District in increasing Digital Literacy Skills Senior Center of West Seattle. There, they'll upgrade an outdated ten station computer lab with new equipment, provide seniors and community members with current technology and Wi-Fi access. The Somali Family Safety Task Force is another organization, the East African Women Basic Computer Literacy Project, the South Park Information and Resource Center and District one. They'll empower South Park residents to gain and teach basic technology skills to 75 non-English speakers. STEM Paths Innovation Network, a project in the Dunlap Elementary Community, a program that provides math and reading interventions with infused science, technology, arts, engineering and math are steamed as students. And just two more. The West African Community Council in District two is empowering West Africans with technology to develop a mobile lobe, more mobile lab to increase digital literacy and access technology in the West African community. And last a wing luke Museum of the Asia Pacific American Experience will provide a mobile digital media lab for low income youth. And establishes mobile lab to improve, provide Asian Pacific American youth. And so before we vote on this, I do want to just make two points that came out of the discussions, one being that as we are now by districts that the you I want to thank the community technology technology advisory board, the volunteers looking at these under looking at these awards and looking at underrepresented communities. But now that we are by districts, I think a message we'll work offline with them as make sure that that the district representation filter is sort of part of the consideration as they move forward because we want to make sure that that is factored in. And then I think Councilmember Gosar made a point that we look at, again, how we award these presentations. If we there might be a possibility where we have an oral presentation part or at least utilize that as one tool to make sure that some groups that might be able to do a little better than that, that make sure that we're using the right filters to reach our communities were intended to do. And and that would be a good opportunity to sort of reset, if we will, how these awards are done. I think we're doing a great job of always improving those. That was the tenor of the conversation. We had a community at the at the committee table. Okay. That was a mouthful. Thanks for your patience. And you can get off your email and get ready to vote. Everybody set any questions or any comments. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Suarez O'Brian. Big John Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi Johnson. President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Hate in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Passes and Cheryl Senate please read the report of the Parks Seattle Center, Libraries and Waterfront Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Technology Matching Fund Program; making allocations and authorizing implementation of certain Technology Matching Fund projects in 2017; providing that 2017 appropriations for the Technology Matching Fund from the Cable Television Franchise Subfund and from the Information Technology Fund shall automatically carry forward into the 2018 fiscal year; allowing that any unspent funds from an individual project may be applied to another project that meets the goals of the Digital Equity Initiative; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_CB 119043 | Speaker 0: Will pass and chair assignment please read agenda item number 12.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item 12 Council Vote 1190 43 Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation Authorizing Superintendent Parks and Recreation to enter to your project partnership agreement with the Seattle District, the United States Army Corps of Engineers. For purposes of executing the Coastal Erosion Control Project and modifying, confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends vote passes amended councilmember words.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is the other seawall issue. This is the Schmitz Elk Seawall Replacement Project. This council will authorize the superintendent to enter into an agreement to complete a replacement for the badly deteriorated seawall at the Emma Schmitz Memorial Overlook Park. The current seawall has a projected fail rate of almost 3%. This course will continue to grow unless the replacement project is done soon. The Army Corps of Engineers hold total of the project, I think is 2.9 million. The Army Corps will be spending 1.9. The city will contribute $1 million and the committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any comments or concerns or questions?
Speaker 2: Customer Herbold I just wanted to thank Councilmember Juarez for her work on this, as well as the work with the Army Corps of Engineers. The cost share, I think, is a good, good deal for the city, and I appreciate that the design is two feet higher than the existing structure to account for what we know is very likely to be in the future, which is sea level increases and increased storm wave heights.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments or questions? Please call the role on the part of the bill.
Speaker 1: Morris I O'BRIEN Thank John Burgess Gonzalez purple hi Johnson President Harrell all right Aden favor and unopposed will.
Speaker 0: Pass and chair of the Senate please read agenda item number 13. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a Project Partnership Agreement with the Seattle District United States Army Corps of Engineers for purposes of executing the Alki Coastal Erosion Control Project; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_Res 31763 | Speaker 3: Agenda item 13 resolution 31763. Adopting a set of Parks and Recreation 2017 Parks Development Plan and authorizing the Department of Parks. Creation to submit the plan to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. The committee recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: That's been worse.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is a little bit more lengthy, so I'm going to ask you to bear with me only because we had this in committee a few times. And I want to thank my my my colleagues, Councilmember Bagshaw and Councilmember Harrell, for making significant changes and having to go back to the department. So this resolution approves the adoption of the 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan. The department released their draft in May. They came to council briefing in June and attended two committee meetings where we discussed the plan and potential changes. I'll take a moment to share some significant changes. Number one, this plan has a more significant emphasis on physical accessibility of park space for residents. The plan not only takes into account the distance between the residents and their nearest park, but also takes into account physical barriers. Given our gap analysis, a more realistic view of how residents can access their parks. This new Gap analysis was also done through an equity lens to ensure we are prioritizing acquisition in park developments in communities most underserved by our current park system. The level of service commitment for the amount of park space per residents was increased from 3.3 acres per 1000 residents to eight acres per 1000 residents. This is a significant goal that commits the city to acquiring approximately 13.5 acres over the next six years to keep up with population growth and trends. This this plan also establishes goals for developing greenways for the first time. A Greenway strategy was not in the previous plan. Now there's a goal to enhance connections and access to parks through coordination with the Seattle Department of Transportation. There are many other great goals in this plan and a list of projects by priority. Priority, I'm sorry, in the appendix. We have a lot of great work to do over the next six years, and I want to thank the department for all the research, outreach and planning they have done to bring this plan to fruition. Once it's approved by council, it will be submitted to the state and used to help the city apply for grant funding to continue to enhance our parks and open spaces. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any questions or concerns? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I do have a question related to the open space plan. When if this is the same plan that you brought to briefings for council to get up to speed on it? I believe that we had a shared request that we had made to the Parks Department to do the analysis without the golf courses, and we never received that information. I don't know if this is maybe a different body of work and I might be confusing it. This is a different body of work. This is separate from you talk about when we do the Metropolitan Park District where we have our park hats on. That's what you're talking about, right? This is this is within the department. This is separate than the. Okay. I recall that we had a briefing, a monday morning briefings meeting separate from the MPD, but I might be I'll have to go back and check my notes. The concern was, is that in doing the open space gap analysis, there are properties that are, for the most part, they may be public in in definition, but in reality they're single use open spaces that only people who wish to golf can use. And so that we had looked at. I remember now I'm sorry, because we remember what you were talking about here, but what you did not want and we shouldn't count golf courses is a park in a green space. Right. And they were counting that. And I will get back to you on that. Thank you. But thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further questions or comments? If not, please, those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I. So week i. Those in favor of death. Religion. Please vote i. I. Okay. Those oppose. Vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted. And Cheryl, sign it. I got a motivator. We were going a little tired here saying, okay, please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 3: The report, the planning land use and Zoning Committee Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 118 985 relating to landing since only many sections 23.70 6.00, 4.0 22 and 23.80 8.0 22. A master code to provide that interpretation by the director and Seattle Department of Construction and inspections are not administrative remedies that must be exhausted prior to seeking judicial | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION adopting Seattle Parks and Recreation 2017 Parks Development Plan (hereafter referred to as the 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan); and authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to submit the plan to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_08072017_Res 31762 | Speaker 0: Passenger please read agenda item number 15.
Speaker 3: Agenda item 15 Resolution 317 62 Identifying proposed comprehensive plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption 2018 and requesting that the Office of Planning, Community Development and the Seattle Planning Commission Review and make recommendations about the proposed Amendments Committee recommends resolution to be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thanks. As I explained to my colleagues again this morning at a council briefing, but I'll just say again, for the benefit of members of the public, once a year, the Council adopts a resolution that identifies proposed amendments to our comprehensive plan. In that resolution, we ask the Planning Department to analyze particular ideas that come from members of the general public or from our Planning Commission for further study. This resolution today is that resolution. It's commonly called the darkening process. So we've got in front of us several ideas that have come from the commission, from members of the general public. We've got an amendment to discuss relating to items that we heard during public comment around Mawgan Junction. But before we get into that amendment, why don't I stop there and see if my colleagues have any questions about the darkening process?
Speaker 0: Any questions thus far? And I realize we have an amendment or two, so we'll hold off on that for a moment. So, Councilman Johnson, I'll follow your lead on sort of how you want to proceed with the amendments.
Speaker 5: As was discussed during council briefing. Council member Herbold and I were able to come to a consensus position on a proposed amendment that should be sitting at your table. And that proposed amendment effectively adds brief language that asks the executive to develop a plan for outreach to the Morgan Community Association in considering amendments to the Morgan Junction Neighborhood Plan. But I believe we have a late breaking amendment to that amendment from one of my colleagues.
Speaker 0: So because we have an amendment to the amendment, I'm going to have to suspend the rules. And so if there's no objection, Council Rule 386 relating to the presentation of full Council amendments 2 hours before the meeting, that rule will be suspended to consider Councilmember Backchannels Amendment.
Speaker 2: President Harrell Can we actually move the amendment that does not require the suspension of the rules first and then we can do that.
Speaker 0: We could do it either way. Is that your preference?
Speaker 2: I would like to start with the amendment that was distributed to council members in advance.
Speaker 0: Think you can go that way? That is very appropriate. So I can't recall. Was that formally moved yet?
Speaker 5: No, I think I discussed it, but I'm not sure that I can actually move forward. So I'm happy to move adoption of that proposed amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. And why don't you second customer, Herbert. And then would you like to speak to it?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. The amendment as as drafted would clarify the Morgan Community Association's proposal to amend three three policies to the Morgan Junction Neighborhood Plan, policies to specify they should not be amended before a formal community planning process is undertaken. And it asks that the executive develop a plan for outreach to the Community Morgan Community Association. The original language that we had before us that that was not a part of the resolution that moved out of committee last week. And the language that Councilmember Johnson proposed this morning, central staff actually recommended against it because it represents sort of the current the current state of the environment as it relates to changes to these three proposals that are part of the Morgan Communities Neighborhood Plan. So the additive language that Councilmember Johnson and I agreed to would it would enhance the engagement. But again, voting in favor of this amendment is is not voting in favor of the comp plan amendment. It's only voting in favor of the darkening of the amendment for CDS study and analysis. Then to come back to us to recommend whether or not to move forward with the amendment itself.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions on that amendment? If not, it's been moved in second. Councilmember Herbert's amendment. All those in favor of that amendment. But I. I opposed the ayes have it for that particular amendment. Now, go ahead. So we're going to possibly a minute, but.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's that's fine. I, I think Councilmember Bagshaw shows amendment was a friendly amendment, so I thought maybe we would deal with that before voting on the amendment. But we can we can do it any way you want either.
Speaker 0: We have not suspended the rule, so I wanted to clean that up. Okay, now we'll suspend the rules and do it another way. So. Okay. Thank you. So having said that, if there's no objection, Council Rule 386 related to the presentation for council members 2 hours before the meeting will be suspended to consider council member back shows amendment saying No objection hearing no objection, the council is suspended and will now proceed with the consideration of the amendment. So can sperm back show you can speak to it.
Speaker 4: Thank you to my colleagues too for allowing this last minute amendment to come forward. The reason I'm bringing this forward is in response to a request from our Department of Neighborhoods, and I really respect the good work that Donna has been doing to reach out to the community in a broader way than maybe has been done in the past. So I support the work that Councilmember Johnson, Councilmember Herbal have done and am requesting that we add this language in that's read in front of you, and the whole paragraph would read the application to amend the policies 13, 14 and 19 to require formal community planning engagement as a prerequisite for further amendments to these policies . The Council requested the Executive and here's my amendment in conjunction with the Department of Neighborhoods, develop a plan for outreach to the Morgan Community Association in consideration of this amendment to the Morgan Junction Neighborhood Plan. So again, the purpose of this is to support what the Department of Neighborhoods is already doing and recognize, frankly, their capacity needs . They are working hard. I think OPD is recognized oftentimes as being the department that is helping with the policy. But Department of Neighborhoods also is the department that is doing the work on the ground, boots on the ground. So they were asking and I support the notion that we just acknowledge the work that the Department of Neighborhoods will be doing in this very good.
Speaker 0: Any further comments on that point, Councilman, here about.
Speaker 2: The that the friendly amendment to my amendment with a request that we not include the language or other make in as part of this. What what this amendment is about is about a planning process for amendments that are not yet known. They're anticipated, but not yet known. And I'm concerned that the language or other Amaechi related amendments puts bookends around these potential amendments to these three policies that may not be MSA related.
Speaker 4: So I believe. What are you asking that or other Amaechi related language? Stay in.
Speaker 2: Is it? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay. Good. I will certainly recognize that.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 4: So the only language that would be added then is in conjunction with the Department of Neighborhoods. Brendan. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I've just a question for the clerk. This document I have is not consistent with the motion that we are about to consider. Can I still proceed with it? Okay. So I'm going to move to amend the amendment and.
Speaker 7: The two hour rule.
Speaker 0: And the motion specifically is saying to reinsert the words or other image related to reinsert that, and which basically ignores the fact that it is read and stricken. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now Councilmember Back has proposed. Amendment reads, as I just described it, all those in favor. First of all, let me back up. Is there any further discussion about councilmember member? Let me back up again. I'm going to kind of keep back and I'm checking this right. We're going to first just vote on my amendment. Okay. Which is a reinserted. Any questions on my amendment? All those in favor of the amendment to reinstate that language. Please vote. I suppose the ayes have it. So now we have council member back shows, proposed amendment. The rules are still suspended. Is there any further discussion on that amendment, Councilmember or any other calls?
Speaker 4: No, but thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 5: I'm going to read for the benefit of the members of the public the language that I believe we're about to vote on. Application to amend passes, MJ, P13, MJ P14 and MJ P19 to require formal community planning engagement as a prerequisite for further amendments to these policies. The Council requests that the Executive, in conjunction with the Department of Neighborhoods, parentheses d0n develop a plan for outreach to the Morgan Community Association in considering this or other MJ related amendments to the Morgan Junction Neighborhood Plan.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions or concerns? Okay. Has been moved in second accounts here, back shows proposed, minutes removed and second and all those in favor of the amendment. Please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. It has been amended. And are there any closing comments on the amended resolution before we vote on it.
Speaker 5: If I may.
Speaker 0: Please, Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 5: I just want to lift up. The darkening process has been especially complicated this year, and I want to say thank you to Councilmember Herbold for her engagement with me on this topic. This is not one that generally gets a whole lot of time and attention, but it has taken extra time and attention this year. So I want to say thank you to my colleagues for doing that. And also, this has been one that has had several members of the public show up and advocate for amendments to the comprehensive plan that will be started this year. That takes a lot of time and energy in itself. The darkening process is one complicated process. It requires generally some sort of consensus between three different departments the planning commission, our own council, central staff, and the Office of Planning and Community Development. That is a very complicated process, which is a high level way to just get through, to get the planning department to study your language. So it's it's been a good one this year. And now at this point, I guess I'm filibustering to make sure that less Whitson, who has emerged from the shadows of our council central staff , has all the information that he needs before we actually take a final vote on this one. And it looks like he's walking away now.
Speaker 4: With his face.
Speaker 5: Smile, Amelia. Did we do? Okay, okay. We're good. All right, so with that, I conclude my remarks. Mr. President, we.
Speaker 4: Will filibuster.
Speaker 0: Johnson. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution 31762 as amended. Please vote. I oppose the ayes have it. The motion carries, a resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. Okay. Is there any further business coming for the council? If not everyone, have a great day and we are adjourned.
Speaker 4: You well done. Thank you, everybody. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION identifying proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered for possible adoption in 2018, 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_07312017_CB 118959 | Speaker 1: Bill Pass and Chair of Senate. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee gene. And number two, you can read the short title.
Speaker 5: The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee announced two and three cancel 118 939 relating to land use and sodium and inefficient snapped trees on certain land in the Chinatown International District. The committee recommends the bill passes amended Resolution 317 54 relating to the Chinatown International District Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 7: JOHNSON Thank you, Mr. Chair, for clarification. I think maybe be helpful for me to start with just a little bit about what's in the substitute versions of both the Council bill and the Council resolution. Maybe we'll do some Q&A, if there is any, and then I'd like the chance to circle back around and make some closing comments . So with your permission, I would just add that there's a couple of elements here in the substitute council bill that I think warrants mentioning. We have made some technical changes to what we refer to as the jingles in the bill. There's a couple of sections refer to the findings and remember some additional sections. There's a clarification in this that Councilmember O'Brien suggested to ensure that our existing transfer of development rights continue to be an option for. For achieving development rights in the Chinatown International District area. And Councilmember Herbold had suggested an amendment that's included in this piece of legislation. The substitute that also allows for additional height options for developers who choose to allow for a lower level of affordability in their units. So if you're a developer who's developing a project that is going to provide at least ten units to folks earning less than 50% of area median income that you're allowed to access additional height that's currently granted for family size units. So that's sort of a quick and dirty version of what's enclosed in the substitute version of Council Bill 118959. We also have a engrossed substitute resolution that makes about a dozen changes to the legislation as it came out of committee. The first was referenced in public comment and it eliminates reference to the historic Manila town. I want to say thank you to Brian and Betty for bringing that forward. We've got a new recital in here about work between the city and the Seattle Housing Authority on a joint assessment of fair housing. We've got expectations regarding the disposition of property that the city owns on and around Charles Street. We've got specific language about stakeholders and as was referred to in public comment, particularly a stakeholder advisory committee that's going to be convened over the next year to continue to ask the city to engage with that stakeholder advisory committee. We've got language that requests the Office of Economic Development to report back to Council on the King Street Activation Project, which is also an agenda item for discussion later on today. We've got a recognition of the diversity of perspectives in the Chinatown international districts and the city's commitment to equitable community development. A commitment to establishing funding for that Equitable Development initiative, commonly referred to as the ED Fund, exploration of strategies of community controlled land and public financing of land acquisition support for displaced renters. Beyond the provisions outlined in the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance request for the Office of Housing to make recommendations around best practices and financial tools for potential changes to the Housing Levy Administrative and Finance Plan. Changes to the prioritization or considerations, rather of changes to the prioritization funds in our mandatory housing affordability program to deliver new units throughout the city, including in high opportunity areas, and then a statement of intention that the Council will continue to work to help identify resources to organizations that work to build housing in and culturally relevant, historically rooted nonprofits. So really broad list of changes both to the base legislation and to the resolution. Happy to answer any questions about both the base bill and the resolution. At this point, I'll just stop talking and give you the mic back.
Speaker 1: Council President Okay, so we will not talk twice about the resolution has not been formally read into the record, but we'll get there. So we have we can chat about both the resolution and the base legislation and the new substitution. Any further comments? You know, like to make this point and you can wait and see.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 7: So so Councilmember Herbert was just asking me a question. Would you like me to formally then move for adoption of the Council bill and we can come back and talk a little bit more about the rest.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that if there are no comments first and we could take the bill first, we have an amendment. They haven't even voted on that yet. So I would just sort of following your lead. You threw me off a little bit sideways, so apologize. You talked about substitution, substitution five for version four. That's currently we haven't formally move that, but we can do that now. Why don't we do that first? So Council Member Johnson has moved to substitute version five for version four and described. Is there a second second.
Speaker 7: Although second my own. I'm sorry. Second on my own.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Let's get someone else to second your motion here. Councilwoman Bagshaw seconded all those in favor of submitting version five for version four. Please say I oppose the ayes have it. So we have a substitute version. Any comments about the substitution version? Not the resolution, just the base legislation. The bill. Any comments? Okay. Would you like to say a few comments? We can actually vote on that before we get to a resolution.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, I think the the things that I would add around the base legislation are effectively the you know, this legislation implements our mandatory housing affordability program. And as we've heard in many of the neighborhoods where we've adopted this program, there's a lot that goes alongside housing affordability that can't be undertaken in our land use code . So this bill that we're voting on today amends the land use code. And that amendment will effectively allow developers to build slightly taller buildings inside the Chinatown International District. There are no zoning changes proposed in the historic core of the Chinatown International District, and the legislation that allows for slightly taller buildings to be built will also allow us to require developers to build affordable housing on site or to pay into a city fund for affordable housing. That's an important piece of information, as was mentioned in public comment. There are several projects that are currently under review in the international district Chinatown area. This legislation allows us to charge some of those developers who have not already vested the mandatory housing affordability program funds and allows us to generate a whole lot more money for affordable housing. To put it into context. We estimate that the program in the Chinatown International District will result in 150 new units of affordable housing being constructed there in the next ten years. Previous legislation that we adopted last week imposed a similar program in the Central District, and we estimated that that would generate about 50 units affordable housing in the next ten years. One project in the Central District announced that they would be moving forward with implementation of the mandatory housing affordability program, commonly known as the Midtown BLOCK. That project in and of itself will build 180 units of affordable housing to folks at 60% of area median income or below. So we're blowing by our targets, and that's a very good thing for us in the city, a city that's really struggling with affordable housing and building enough affordable housing quickly to meet our demands. That concludes my remarks. Mr.. Mr..
Speaker 1: Very good. Any other remarks? I'll have two remarks on the resolution, but not on the bill. I'm going to work on my to resolution. Okay. So we'll have some remarks on the resolution, I'm sure. So we have all please call the roll on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 2: Bill Johnson for us. Sergeant Bagshaw, Burgess Gonzalez purple President Harrell eight in favor nine.
Speaker 1: Oppose the bill passed and chair of Senate so read the resolution into the record, please.
Speaker 3: I think you did it.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's been read. So Councilmember Johnson spoke to the resolution. Are there any further comments regarding the resolution and the policies behind the resolution for the bill we just passed? Customer Back Show.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes. I want to say thanks to the community and I especially appreciate the work that my colleagues have done around establishing this new unified international special review district for the Chinatown International District, Little Saigon community. I have no idea how you are going to be able to keep those words in order, but I think it's a major step in the right direction. And I also would like to point out that we have over the years talked about unifying the police precincts in Little Saigon. So either the full East Precinct moves over into the west side of I-5 or vice versa. And I want to encourage our police department and our council to be working to make that happen this year. And then lastly, it's about the green stormwater infrastructure. I know we've also been talking about that, but the need to make sure that Chinatown and the international district as a whole are greened up as much as other areas of the city that we've been working on. So I would just want to acknowledge those are some things that are undone, but I really hope that we can get those done this year.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the comments. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. In addition.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 4: My appreciation to interim the Seattle Chinatown PTA, Puget Sound Stage, the yes, our community collaborative advocates from Little Saigon, the SED coalition and all the folks who came to meetings and made this a better piece of legislation and a really important work plan for the city and the community to work on together moving forward. I heard loud and clear that what comes next is what's really important. I also want to thank Councilmembers Johnson and Central Staff for working with my office and under Councilor in particular in my office. I think we have a much better product as a result of all of that work. We Councilmember Johnson did a great job in highlighting the changes that have been made since committee from today. They're also really important changes that were made in. In committee and we had talked about ways of using the growth associated in the CID.
Speaker 0: To support.
Speaker 4: The projects associated with.
Speaker 0: Our our shared goals for the kid.
Speaker 4: And we also talked about the exploration of an unreinforced masonry preservation pilot and looking at potentially either some of the funds from NASA or the reestablishment of a property tax growth fund as earmarking an increment of growth for either. Preservation of of properties that are unreinforced masonry and thus have issues of safety in rental housing. But also, I think the conversation that has been keyed up around the future of a potential property tax growth fund could be also used not only to.
Speaker 0: Support.
Speaker 4: That program, but other high priorities in the community and really to support have an ongoing revenue source for the for the EDA fund.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Before I make some comments, we have a sort of a housekeeping. We did describe the subject version. The components of it comes from Amber Johnson. So why don't I move it for you and you could second it. I'll move to substitute version four for version three. Second, all those in favor of the substitution. But I, I, I have it. Okay, so we've already talked about it and I'll just say a few, few remarks and that is, I just want to thank, first of all, Councilmember Johnson, the committee again for their leadership and slowing it down a little bit, but not to a complete halt, because I think the community has spoken loudly and to some extent. There's obviously been some differences of opinion, even some arguments. But I always contend that people only argue about things they care about. The things that really matter in the Chinatown International District is indeed a gem. And it's a gem because not only is it rare and special, but it's worthy of being maintained and invested in to, in a sense and a proposition. We have to invest in it. And what I've been very pleased about during the outreach is that we saw not only people with gray hair or no hair advocating as they have for decades. And I see a few leaders here as well, that it has become a gem because of folks like Sharon and Frank and others in Dawson. I could just go down the list, but I was very pleased to see the younger generation and Tom the younger and I'll put you in the younger generation time, the younger generation at the testimony that they are as passionate as many of us have been. And so I think that you have city leaders that understand the unique character of this very special part of town. It will continue to succeed and we will have and make sure we bring in the right the right investments. We won't be exempted like the historic core certain areas. It wasn't because well, let me put it in a positive way. It was because we realized that it is very precious and we're trying to go slowly enough to where we take the community with us. But we're again, we're trying to activate and bring in some economic development and bring in affordable housing. And the elephant in the room is displacement. And so we tried to address that head on with our strategies. And by the way, displacement is not unique to the Chinatown International District. It's happening all over this country as people migrate toward course cities. So we are in this fight together. But I hope that you believe we try to come out in a real good place with what are in some cases, modest up zones, but indeed a good package in a daze. But I want to thank all of you for your continued advocacy for our communities you love and have fought so hard for. And Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Just briefly, I want to say a couple of things about sort of the wrap up. Councilmember Herbold did a great job of thanking the many community partners who helped us along the way. But there's a couple that I just want to add to Friends of Little Saigon, thanks to Kwan and Yandi for the many hours that they've spent with us on this project. And I also want to say thanks to Sunny and several of other folks who spent a lot of time working with us on on this issue. You know, the there's a lot going on in the Chinatown international districts right now between the work that we're doing around public safety, between the work that we're doing on commercial affordability, that are really outside the scope of zoning changes but are all very interrelated. We want to reemphasize again the the language, the zoning changes that we adopted. They don't make any change to the historic core of the of the international district, Chinatown. And in addition, in that historic core, there are dozens of projects with more than a thousand units of affordable housing. None of those units go away. None of those projects go away. All those will continue to stay affordable for the folks that are living there today. The program's implementation will result in new affordable housing units coming online, which is, I think, really important for us to remind folks of. And it's important because a lot of families of a lot of different incomes are being displaced from the city right now. And we want places for all those families to be able to call home. The Chinatown International District, as was mentioned during public comment, provides access to good jobs, vibrant local businesses, cultural services that allow multi-generational support in history and a lot a lot of transportation choices. So there's a lot of different ways for you to be able to get around without needing a car. And in addition, there's a really incredible set of decisions that can be made through the International Special Review District, which has been aptly suggested to be renamed today but also we'll put that on the list of to do is following up from today and that expansion allows for a community that is currently represented by three different design review boards to come together under one umbrella and also to have that umbrella be expanded. The special review district allows for a lot of review that can't traditionally be. Done by our citizens on review processes. And I won't bore my colleagues by going into the differences between those two. But let's just say this allows for a lot more community ownership of the kind of buildings that are going to get constructed in the in the Little Saigon area in particular going forward. I'm really excited to see the work plan coming out of the City Advisory Committee as was referenced during public comment. And it's not lost on me that in the wake of the discussions that we've been having here in the community, that we are also in Councilmember Burgess's committee on Wednesday, moving forward with funding in our second quarter supplemental budget to hire a consultant and have that consultant work with the city to talk about disposition of public lands at Charles Street, which the community has been asking for public ownership of for a very long time. So these things are all interconnected, and that's been a theme, I think, of a lot of our zoning changes. We want our work to be connected, to be responsive and to be collaborative. And that's something that I think we really hope to have a hallmark on in future zoning changes we've done for so far this year. We've got one more on the docket before the council takes our pause for a budget process that's uptown. But whether it's the Central District or Uptown or the international district or the U. District or downtown South Lake Union, what struck me about this discussion was how many folks came up to me during the course of the last several months and talked about their immigration story or their family's immigration story, how coming to Seattle give them a chance to build a new life, and how the international district really provided a home, both physical and cultural, where people could feel connected and resourced and supported. And so with many folks moving here today who continue to look for that resource and support and cultural touchstone, I hope that the zoning changes allow us to continue to have the city be a vibrant, welcoming place for people of all generations for many years to come.
Speaker 1: Thank you for those closing remarks. Okay. Those in favor of adopting the amended resolution, please vote I. I oppose vote no. The motion carries and a resolution is adopted in the chair will sign it. Thank you very much. Please read the report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee, and you can read short Title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending the Official Land Use Map (Chapter 23.32) to rezone certain land in the Chinatown/International District; amending Sections 23.49.007, 23.49.008, 23.49.011, 23.49.013, 23.49.014, 23.49.023, 23.49.156, 23.49.158, 23.49.164, 23.49.208, 23.49.212, 23.49.242, 23.58B.040, 23.58B.050, 23.58C.035, 23.58C.040, and 23.58C.050 to implement Mandatory Housing Affordability requirements in the Chinatown/International District; and amending Map A for Section 23.41.006, Design Review Board Districts, Map 1B, Map 1C, Map 1F, Map 1G and Map 1H for Section 23.49, Downtown Overlay Maps, Map A for Section 23.66.302, International Special Review District and Map B for Section 23.66.326, International District. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07312017_CB 119038 | Speaker 1: Please read the report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee, and you can read short Title.
Speaker 5: Three, part of the Human Services and Public Health Committee agenda and for Accountable 1190 38 relating to planning and zoning and many section 23.40 9.008. Committee recommends that the full council pass the bill's amended.
Speaker 1: Customer back show.
Speaker 0: Good. Thank you. Do we have the amendment in front of us first?
Speaker 1: Yes. We can move to amend. You want to move? 2 minutes.
Speaker 0: I would like to move Council Bill 119038 as it is in front of us for this amendment. And the effect of amendment is to change the qualifying distance for an alley from 18 feet to 22 feet.
Speaker 1: It's been moved in second and to amend sections one and two is just a slight sort of a typographical technical errors described this morning. All those in favor of that amendment vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. So it is now amended.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. And I want to say special thanks to John and Legales. So snowy and the front row here, Peter Steinberg, for helping us shepherd this through. This all started well over a year ago where downtown residents said, now we're just getting too close. There are established buildings, residential buildings that are already in place in our dock, too. That's downtown office court, too. And when other buildings come in, they get so close that it really does reduce light, air, privacy and sunshine coming to the existing buildings. So this modification to the 2340 9008 in our municipal code impacts structural height. And what it will do is to allow in that dock to zone. And it's a small zone entirely encapsulated within the downtown area to allow a change of height. So it will be a type one decision. The director may increase the maximum height for residential uses, up to 640 feet in this area. And for this, that alleyways will be a little bit wider. The buildings can be taller and skinnier, but to allow light and air and some more sunshine and sometimes a little more privacy to the residential buildings that are already there. So we would move adoption of this.
Speaker 1: Very good. Any further comments? Councilwoman Johnson.
Speaker 7: Just want to say thank you to Councilmember Wagstaff for making the space in our committee for this discussion. We have been overbooked, and I'm grateful to you for making the time and energy. I know that land use that doesn't usually go on the public health committee, but thanks for your time. I really appreciate.
Speaker 0: It. It was great. And if I can just follow up, if nobody else has anything else they want to add, I just want to say thank you to all the people that were involved, Lily Ruderman and Alberta Black in my office, Ketel Freeman. I don't see him here, but he and Matt Roae from Via Architects and of course Councilmember Johnson and his staff, and also Sam Assefa and Sarah McDonough from our Office of Planning and Community Development. This wouldn't be here without all of you.
Speaker 1: Very good. Okay, please call the roll on the passage of the amended.
Speaker 2: Bill Johnson. Boris I Bagshaw. Burgess, Gonzalez, Herbold. All right. President Harrell.
Speaker 1: Height.
Speaker 2: Eight and favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill pass and chair assignment. Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee. Carry the short time on please.
Speaker 5: Three part of the Energy Environment Committee agenda and five cancel 1190 34 relating to the City Light Department declaring the city's eighth and Roy Street property surplus. The city's needs are no longer required for providing public utility services or other municipal purposes. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.49.008, 23.49.011, 23.76.004, and 23.76.006 of the Seattle Municipal Code to encourage voluntary setbacks in the Downtown Office Core 2 zone between existing residential towers and new towers by authorizing additional height and density. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07312017_CB 119034 | Speaker 5: Three part of the Energy Environment Committee agenda and five cancel 1190 34 relating to the City Light Department declaring the city's eighth and Roy Street property surplus. The city's needs are no longer required for providing public utility services or other municipal purposes. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmembers two one.
Speaker 0: And how this ordinance authorizes city life to sell a surplus property on eighth and Roy City lighthouses add the property appraised and expects to get well over $30 million for it because it's in Salt Lake Union in a prime location and part of the revenue from the sale will go to the rate stabilization action, which may be sufficient to remove the 1.5% rate. So, Judge, that Seattleites have been paying for the last year on their city led bills. The Energy and Environment Committee discussed the possible uses for the property. Ideally, Seattle uses publicly owned property to build affordable housing in the midst of this housing crisis. However, this property is owned by City Light, not the city of Seattle, which means that legally, if any department wants it, the city needs to base a delightful market value. The Office of Housing in the Parks Department came to the committee meeting and explained that paying that much for this particular property to use for affordable housing or for a park in that location is not the best use of their funds if they have to pay full market value anyway, they have other properties that are a higher priority to purchase for housing or parks. So, you know, City Light has been sitting on this property without using it for anything for the past seven years and has no plan to use it for anything in the future. So the Energy and Environment Committee unanimously recommends that council pass this bill.
Speaker 1: Just very good. Any questions concerning Gonzales?
Speaker 4: Oh, no questions. I was just gonna make a comment, please. Okay. So I just wanted to talk a little bit about sort of where we're at with these surplus properties. A I think to me it's a little it's, it's, it's frustrating that we can't have more flexibility as it relates to surplus property that is in an area like South Lake Union. But unfortunately it is pretty clear under state law that this is rate payer regulated and that that as a result of that we have to strictly comply with the laws imposed upon us by the state as it relates to how we can manage disposition of this particular property. Our Office of Housing came to a hearing to our committee last week and testified that they have looked at the opportunity of purchasing and acquiring this land for purposes of building affordable housing. Twice since 2009, I believe, was the date and still have come to the same conclusion that it's just cost prohibitive to acquire this particular parcel . And our Parks Department also reviewed the opportunity to purchase this and likewise determined that this was not a good opportunity for them, given the cost. And I just want to highlight that if you do a public records search, you'll see that the risk to the city of not strictly complying with the state laws that are applicable to these two ratepayer property is quite, quite serious. And in fact, the city of Seattle has historically been sued approximately four times as a result of trying to find nuances as it relates to how we can sell and or otherwise utilize repair owned property. So just wanted to buttress the points that were made by Councilmember Salant that we heard in committee last week.
Speaker 1: Very good cuts from Johnson.
Speaker 7: Just wanted to ask a question. You know, we've gotten several communications, both from members of the public who are here today, but then also representatives of both the South Lake Union, Chamber of Commerce and other folks representing South Lake Union. I'm wondering if in particular, one of those organizations asked if there was an opportunity for jurisdictional transfer or for co-development of the property with city and other development companies that would allow for Cee Lo to maintain ownership but also have some co-development relationship to where those issues are addressed at all in committee. Were they explored at all by satellite? Is there.
Speaker 0: Believe that has ever come up but.
Speaker 4: I got I. Without waiving attorney client privilege, I have seen a memo that discusses pretty heavy restrictions on those types of proposals. I want to be really clear that it is my understanding that the property itself can be used for anything that the community wants it to be used for, but they have to pay fair market value . So whatever the appraisal fair market value is, that's what has to be paid and it can be used for anything that the Chamber of Commerce dreams up of or otherwise for. I mean, the question is the cost.
Speaker 7: Yeah, the cost piece. I understand the underlying piece related to it. It just seems to me that in a city where we continue to grow, both in terms of staff and in terms of population, that, you know, opportunities for us to have any kind of public property that can be maintained in our control or have some sort of joint use opportunity to it. You know, in particular, this letter from the South Lake Union Chamber of Commerce talks about co-development relationships. And and notwithstanding the committee discussions that I you know, I had to. You the person who lobs in a lot of questions here in the final yards. But it just seems to me like this is a very large missed opportunity and I recognize the legal ramifications. And I don't want to get us in hot water with any folks at the city attorney's office, but just want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence about turning over every rock humanly possible about options that might have been available to us around not, not just owned it, continued ownership of the property for city life, but also that ownership that may allow for other uses to continue. It sounds as though that that's the case, but I just want to make sure we're we're doing everything we can.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 4: I just want to take this opportunity to note that the recommendation to prioritize city owned property for housing purposes was a was a hollow recommendation. And though we have significant limitations that relates to property that's owned by our public utilities, not just city life, but also as Pugh, we have increased our sale of city properties and use either use those properties themselves for housing or use the proceeds for housing. Just from 2015 to 2017, there have been 12 properties that have been either the properties themselves, they're going to be housing built on them or the proceeds from the sale. The property is going to be used for affordable housing. Just in the last few months we've taken action on 1415 Eastchester Way and 1429 South Jackson. And I think there's a there's a strong commitment to this principle. And I understand that when we talk about the disposition properties in Councilmember Burgess's committee, that we're going to talk about how to better make sure that our disposition process really prioritizes the use of these properties whenever possible for affordable housing.
Speaker 6: And our first discussion is Wednesday morning of that.
Speaker 3: That's great.
Speaker 1: Kathryn Bigelow.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Burgess, are you talking about this particular property? And, you know.
Speaker 6: We're talking in general about the cities disposition, policy process we follow for disposition.
Speaker 0: If you just follow up quickly and this is Councilmember Solon, Councilmember Gonzales, that you worked on this. Is it possible for us to extend the period of time councilmembers want? Is it possible for us to extend the period of time as Seattle City Life is putting this out to the public? Can we ask them to continue to explore alternatives, whether it's co-development or something, to allow this to happen? I mean, if the majority of the council want to do that, you can do that. But in my view, City Light has explored every possible option. And I thought Councilmember Gonzalez gave a good description from the legal standpoint, the severe restrictions they face. So my honest opinion would be you can hold it, but you want to have a different outcome. And we'll probably come back to the same point.
Speaker 4: I, I would concur with that opinion, an assessment that was just provided by council members to want. And I also want to be very clear that any further delay of action on this particular council bill will result in an impact to an ongoing impact to our ratepayers disposition of this property. At this juncture, given that the $33 million appraisal that we have will enable the utility to be able to remove the 1.5% surcharge that is currently being experienced by our city white ratepayers. And that's that's pretty significant. And I would urge us to not delay any further, particularly given since this has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed since since 2009, based on the presentation provided to us by the departments.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think that's time for a vote, Councilman, which is.
Speaker 0: Just as the Chair of Parks and being the vice chair with council members who want I mean, the history here, we've had it in committee twice and it was Department of Parks are Seattle City Light transported Department of parks in 92 and then then it killed Parks transferred it back to Sea Light in 2003. And I want to follow up on what Councilmember Gonzalez said about the delay in the cost in the money, and that the money would be going back and correct me if I'm wrong. CUSTOMER So why don't we go back to the rent stabilization rate I'm sorry, rate stabilization account. But the other concern is, and we've we've been to committee hearings where we have heard from Department of Parks and Rec that they do not want this property. We heard from Office of Housing that they do not want this property. It's pretty, pretty vetted, pretty clear. And also going back on what Councilmember Gonzalez said without on the legal opinion and the justification, it's it's just it's just time. So we need to do it.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's, let's please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 7: Johnson I.
Speaker 0: Suarez Yeah.
Speaker 2: So what I think John Burgess Gonzalez proposed president Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of the Senate please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring the City’s 8th and Roy Street property as surplus to the City’s needs and no longer required for providing public utility service or other municipal purpose; authorizing the sale of this property for fair market value through a brokered sale; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the City Light Department to execute all necessary documents to accomplish such property sale; and authorizing the deposit of the proceeds of the sale in the City Light Fund and allocation of part of the proceeds to the Rate Stabilization Account. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07312017_CB 119035 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee Agenda Item six Council 1190 35 relating to the Financing King Street Station 30 for tenant improvements authorizing a loan of funds in the amount of 2.8 million from the Municipal Arts Fund to the 2018 Multipurpose Alto Bond Fund for Bridge Financing for Design and Construction of Improvements. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 4: We're Herbold. Thank you. Council authorized $1.8 million in bond financing in the 2017 budget, and START has a $1.8 million appropriation authority based on an anticipated $1.8 million bond sale. That bond sale is not happening this year. So the council has requested another method to pay for the $1 million in spending during 2017, along with a proposed reduction of 800,000 in 2017. Appropriation authority included in the second quarter supplemental budget being considered in the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. As a heads up.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 4: The 2018 budget deliberations, Council should be aware that the Council, the executive, plans to request a significant additional appropriation for for this project, an initial appropriation in 3.4 million. But it's important to note that the bond financing is proposed to be funded through the admissions tax revenue, which beginning in 2018 will be 100% dedicated to arts funding . So the funding increase will be covered by a funding source specifically dedicated to arts in the Seattle Municipal Code. The cash balance of the Municipal Arts Fund is $9.8 million, and so funding is clearly available, but we'll be taking that up in the budget process.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson Marez the warrant. Bagshaw. Burgess Hi, Gonzales. Herbold Hi, President. Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed share with Senate please read agenda item number seven.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item seven appointment 743 appointment. And Sir Rothman is members Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities four Term two October 31st, 2017. The committee recommends the appointment be confirmed soon. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of King Street Station third-floor tenant improvements; authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of $2.8 million from the Municipal Arts Fund to the 2018 Multipurpose LTGO Bond Fund for bridge financing for design and construction of improvements. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_CB 119032 | Speaker 7: The report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Council vote 1190 32 relating to City Public Works in the Priority Hire program amending sections 20.30 7.0, 10.0, 20.0 49.0 50 of the ceiling. Mr. Code to change references to project labor agreement to community workforce agreement, to make certain technical corrections and to change the number of core workers open shop contractors may bring to a project.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Does this item need to be moved or not?
Speaker 0: I'll move it after you speak to it.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So just a little bit of context. The priority hire program requires that public works construction projects that have contracts totaling 5 million or more must be covered by a master community workforce agreement. That does two primary things. First of all, it requires a minimum percentage of workers being local residents from economically disadvantaged zip codes and it requires utilization of apprentice IT apprentices that come from pre apprenticeship programs. This second requirement improves the opportunity of an on and underemployed workers receiving entry level training to be eventually placed on these public works projects. We're celebrating two years since the passage of this legislation, and this program is very successful in maximizing the city's investment in public infrastructure to help residents secure apprenticeship and journey level employment opportunities on city funded works, public works projects. The legislation, as passed out of committee makes a couple of changes to the to the priority hire legislation. Primarily, it will reduce from 5 to 3 the number of court employees that open shop contractors may include on a project before hiring through the priority hire hiring process. And two, it allows open shop in women and minority business enterprise contractors to bring, in addition to the three core employees, two apprentices from state approved training programs that are either a worker from a disadvantaged zip code, a pre apprenticeship graduate, or a woman or person of color. These revisions are supported by the executive, and they're also supported by the Priority Hire Advisory Committee. Since the passage of the 25 legislation, Seattle residents have actually doubled their percentage of hours on projects compared to past projects where the percentage of Seattle residents working on these taxpayer funded projects prior to priority hire was only 5%. And then the the the efforts of focusing on workers in economically distressed zip codes in Seattle has been very successful because those zip codes are now performing more than three times the hours as compared to past projects. And then finally, women more work more than two times the hours. Now, compared to previous years.
Speaker 0: Very good. Um, I'll move to pass Council Bill 119032. Is there a second?
Speaker 7: I'll get it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks for the description of that. Bill comes from her brother. Any further comments? We're good. He's got the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold Hi. Johnson. Swan I bagshaw Burgess I. Gonzalez, President Herrell I seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate Please read Agenda Item number two. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to City public works and the priority hire program; amending Sections 20.37.010, 20.37.020, 20.37.040, and 20.37.050 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change references to “project labor agreement” to “community workforce agreement,” to make certain technical corrections, and to change the number of core workers open-shop contractors may bring to a project. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_CB 119026 | Speaker 7: Agenda for accountable 1190 26 relating to property at CenterPoint. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 0: Guess what? I'm Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is a new lease for land out at Magnuson Sandpoint. This replaces a lease between the city and solid ground with a new version of that lease, which allows solid ground to receive other benefits in the way of federal tax credits. So this is a technical change that allows this property to be held by solid ground for affordable housing and assisting the homeless.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments?
Speaker 5: Great project.
Speaker 0: Great project. Please call the roll on the part of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold Hi. Johnson. Sergeant. I beg Sean Burgess. Hi, Gonzales. President Harrell. All right. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of with Senate. Please read the report of the Education, Equity and Governance Committee items five through 21. | 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 two parcels from that lease; authorizing a new lease of the removed parcels to SPH Two LLLP; authorizing deeds to buildings on those parcels; authorizing related documents and actions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_CF 314349 | Speaker 7: The Report of the Planning, Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Items 23 and 24 Clerk File 314 349. Application Capital Housing Trees on property located at 2320. East Union Street for Neighborhood Commercial two with a 40 foot height limit and a rear commercial two with a 40 foot height limit and pedestrian designation to neighborhood commercial. Two with a 65 foot height limit and pedestrian designation, the committee recommends the petition be granted as condition and a council bill 1190 28 Willing to license zoning amending Chapter 23.32 of the Citizens for Code at Page 113 of the official land use map to reason property locate at 2320 East Union Street. The committee recommends this bill pass.
Speaker 0: Castro and Johnson.
Speaker 5: Get ready for eight items of Rob Johnson between plus committee work and the Sustainability and Transportation Committee were called in for Councilmember O'Brien in his absence. So these two items in front of us, items 23 and 24 execute execute an agreement with developer Capitol Hill Housing who would like to redevelop our site, commonly referred to as the Liberty Bank building to build affordable housing. In order for us to do that, they've applied for a contract rezone to allow for the building to be built at 65 feet as opposed to the current 40 foot high limit. In addition, there will be a pedestrian designation which limits the number of uses on the retail floor and sets forth a pathway for us to really continue the good work the capital housing has done to build more affordable housing, not just on Capitol Hill, in the Central District and all throughout the city. So item number 23 is the Clarke file, and I'd recommend passage of clerk file.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any comments on the Clarke file? Those in favor of granting the petition as conditions. Please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries in the petition is granted as condition and the chair was signed the findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council.
Speaker 5: And in this next part, I, I ask for an amendment to council Bill 119028 to substitute the executed for the on executed property use and development agreement. Item 23 was that properties using development agreement. This updates the actual ordinance to include the item that we just voted on.
Speaker 0: So we have an amendment on the floor. Is there a second those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amended amendment? As stated, please vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So the amendment passes.
Speaker 5: I have nothing further.
Speaker 0: Okay, so we have a amended piece of legislation in front of us. Any of the further comments for anybody? Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 119028 as amended.
Speaker 1: Herbold Johnson by Sergeant Bagshaw Burgess Gonzales President Harrell seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of Senate Please read agenda item number 25. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Capitol Hill Housing to rezone property located at 2320 East Union Street from Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 40 foot height limit (NC2 40) and Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 40 foot height limit and Pedestrian designation (NC2P 40) to Neighborhood Commercial 2 with a 65 foot height limit and Pedestrian designation(NC2P 65) (Project No. 3018178, Type IV). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_CB 118980 | Speaker 7: Agenda item 26 cancel 118 980 million to Lani since only in many section 23.40 1.0 Tennessee item is for code to update the list of approved neighborhoods design guidelines approving and adopting a new mt. Baker Town Center Design Guidelines and approving Adopting Agreement and Pipeline Design Guidelines. Committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Katherine Johnson.
Speaker 5: Several years ago, the Planning and Community Development Office entertained a series of design guideline changes proposed by both the Pike Pine Neighborhood and the Mount Baker neighborhood. Those two neighborhoods went through a series of design meetings with our staff, and this is what's resulted. And as folks now who pay attention to development issues here at City Hall. Design guidelines are a way for community to get together and identify the kinds of look, feel and typology of buildings so that when new developments proposed, it's much easier, a much smoother transition than when design guidelines don't exist. So a couple of good neighborhoods, a lot of folks coming to the city and asking us to develop more design guidelines. And here's two good ones to start. Happy to answer questions. Recommend the passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Any further questions? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold Johnson. Sergeant Bagshaw Burgess. Hi, Gonzalez. President Herrell I seven in favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed in show Senate Please read agenda items 27 313 Please read the short titles and all the.
Speaker 7: Agenda items 27 330 Constable 118 981 Ruling 26 only in many Chapter 23.32 Statements of Coda Pages 112 and 113 Official Land Use Map Theresa Land and 23 and cherry note of the 23 Union Jackson Residential Urban Village. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 23.41.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code to update the list of approved neighborhood design guidelines; approving and adopting the new Mount Baker Town Center Design Guidelines; and approving and adopting augmented Pike/Pine Design Guidelines. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_Res 31761 | Speaker 7: Agenda Item 32 Resolution 317 61 relating to the Roosevelt Rapid Roy Project adopting the Roosevelt rapid rise locally preferred alternative, endorsing efforts to pursue federal and regional funding for the Roosevelt Rapid REDD project and committing to fully funding the project development phase at 4.3 million 2017. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Castro and Johnson.
Speaker 5: So consistent with council direction in the fall. As part of our budget process, we asked the Department of Transportation to continue to bring us individual projects when they're above a certain size, to ask for council approval on what a locally preferred alternative would look like. This project is a proposed Bus Rapid Transit Project connecting downtown with the Roosevelt neighborhood through East Lake in the University District. The action that is proposed would be to adopt a locally preferred alternative, which is an important step and allows us to apply for state and federal funding. We are unable to apply for those funds without having adopted a locally preferred alternative. We as a city estimate that this project is about a $70 million project. The objective is to get 35 million I half of that money coming from state and federal funding. If we are unsuccessful in securing that, the Department will bring back to us a revised proposal. The objective is to have the Roosevelt Rapid Ride Line open in conjunction with the University District, Roosevelt and Northgate Stations. There's been a robust discussion on the Eastlake Social Club Facebook page, which is a very active page in the Eastlake neighborhood , about this locally preferred alternative because it would be proposed to both build a protected bike lane and in some instances eliminate parking. I heard from a constituent named Jules James, who's very active in the community. Jules, I want to assure to you I would have never represented that you supported elimination of on street parking. Whoever you heard that from, they were wrong. So thanks for letting me get that out of the. Council president just doing a little politicking here at this point and happy to answer any questions that folks might have about the Roosevelt Rapid Ride project.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further questions? Okay, please call. I'm sorry. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote. I, i. Those opposed vote. No. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign. It is read agenda item number 33. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Roosevelt RapidRide Project; adopting the Roosevelt RapidRide Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA); endorsing efforts to pursue federal and regional funding for the Roosevelt RapidRide Project; and committing to fully funding the Project Development phase at $4.3 million in 2017. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07242017_Res 31755 | Speaker 7: Agenda item 33 Resolution 317 45 relating to the 2005 Transportation Strategic Plan Update adopting adopted by resolution 307 90 and the Seattle Transit Plan to get Seattle moving, adopted by Resolution 307 99 and authorizing amendment to the transit classification map. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson As.
Speaker 5: I mentioned this morning at council briefing, we have a transportation strategic plan that outlines exactly a transit classification map where our major transit routes, minor transit routes, local roads that don't have transit operating on them. That current transit classification map needs to be updated to be consistent with the service that's actually out there on the street, and that's proposed to continue to expand into the future. So this resolution does just that allows the city Department of Transportation to continue to work with Metro and other stakeholders on design of things like turning radius for local streets. As we get into repaving projects to make sure that the turning radii are simple and work well for transit operators, etc. etc.. Happy to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Any comments or questions? Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign it. That concludes our agenda for today. Is there any further business giving for the council? Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I want to apologize to Councilmember Swan this morning. During briefing, she made a statement about the police department's reply to questions that we had submitted. And I misunderstood her statement, and I thought she had alleged that the department had not identified officers who were involved in lethal force, which they did do in their responses. But Councilmember Swan was talking about identifying officers and tying and linking them to specific incidents which they did not do in their answers. So I apologize.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Very good.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further business coming to the council? If not, will stand adjourned. And everyone, have a great afternoon. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the 2005 Transportation Strategic Plan Update, adopted by Resolution 30790, and the Seattle Transit Plan: To Get Seattle Moving, adopted by Resolution 30799; and authorizing an amendment to the Transit Classification Map. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07172017_Res 31758 | Speaker 1: With the report of the Full Council Agenda Item one Resolution 31758. A resolution setting the public hearing on the petition of West Coast Self-Storage and General Steel Services of Washington, LLC for the vacation of a portion of 29th Avenue Southwest and a portion of Southwest City View Street and the greater Duwamish Neighborhood Planning Area, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code and Clerk File 314357. Introduced June 19th, 2017.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I didn't realize this one was me.
Speaker 1: Oh, you want me to do it for you?
Speaker 4: You know it.
Speaker 1: Make enough to say yes.
Speaker 4: Let's see here.
Speaker 1: The strict one.
Speaker 3: Strip vacations in a day.
Speaker 0: Apologize my notes, said Councilmember O'Brien. And I just follow my notes. And you probably could just read the caption.
Speaker 4: But this is the type of legislation that it does require a resolution to notify the notice for public hearing. So this is exactly what that does.
Speaker 0: Yes, it's just a routine notice to set the public hearing on the petition from West Coast. It's what I heard you say. That's okay. Okay.
Speaker 4: Articulate.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Those in favor of adopting the resolution is so well articulated by Councilmember Bryant. Please vote i. I. Those opposed vote no emotion carries the resolution adopted the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee.
Speaker 1: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 119018 An ordinance related to the Bias Free Policing Adding a new Chapter 14.11 consisting of sections 14.11 .0101020.030.040.050.060. To the Seattle Municipal Code to codify Seattle's commitment to bias free policing, require the Seattle Police Department to have bias free policing policies | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION setting the public hearing on the petition of West Coast Self-Storage, and General Steel Services of Washington, LLC for the vacation of a portion of 29th Avenue Southwest and a portion of Southwest City View Street in the Greater Duwamish Neighborhood Planning Area, according to Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 15.62 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and Clerk File 314357. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07172017_CB 119006 | Speaker 1: Agenda Item nine Council Bill 119006 An Ordinance Granting Binder Development, L.P. and Binder Equities Inc. Permission to construct, maintain and operate a plaza over and across East Howe Street, south of your place, east and west of Eastlake Avenue, east for a ten year term, renewable for two consecutive ten year terms. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: That's from Brian.
Speaker 4: This is related to a subterranean street vacation that the city granted in concept a few years ago to a project on Eastlake. The the property owner developed two buildings on adjacent sites but they crossed the the right away and would have been house street or that is how street subterranean they build one parking garage for both of those so they have they essentially have a vacation for the area below house street to allow the parking to function better than as opposed to building two separate parking structures. The project is now complete and has met the terms of our conditions. Just to remind folks what happened is that grade the the house right away maintains a is maintained is a 24 hour pass through between the two buildings. But it is kind of part of the plaza for those buildings. And so we are granting an easement to the property owner to maintain that property on behalf of the public on an ongoing basis. And so that's what this legislation does.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any questions? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez i. Herbold i. Johnson or s i.
Speaker 4: O'Brien II.
Speaker 2: Bagshaw Burgess, President Harrell. Eight In Favor nine oppose pasture senate.
Speaker 0: Please read as an exigent item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE granting Bender Development LP and Bender Equities Inc. permission to construct, maintain, and operate a plaza over and across East Howe Street, south of Yale Place East and west of Eastlake Avenue East 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_07102017_CB 119002 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair of Senate Bill. Both bills passed into law will sign both bills. Please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.
Speaker 5: Report of the Affordable Housing Terrorism Finance Committee and item one Cancel 119002 Imposing income tax on high incomes, residents providing solutions for lowering the property tax burden and the impact of others. Regressive taxes replacing federal funding potentially lost through federal funding cuts. Budget cuts providing public services including housing, education and transit. And creating green jobs. Meeting carbon reduction goals and adding a new Chapter 5.65 to set a code. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: I believe Councilman Burgess will give some context and some history and I think it will then be pass counts for her vote, if I'm not mistaken. Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you. I just want to go through the history of our committee's consideration of this legislation. This began on May 1st, when the city council adopted a resolution expressing our intent to adopt a progressive income tax targeting high income households in the city. At that time, we indicated that we would pass this legislation by July ten, which is today. On May 31st, the Finance Committee held a special meeting and heard a presentation from local Seattle economists Dick Conway and John Burbank, the executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute. Dick and John briefed us on tax regressive in Washington state. Dick Conway has studied tax policy in all 50 states for many, many years and reported the updated analysis of his work on that, which shows that Washington State has the most regressive taxes in the United States. On June 14, we held a public hearing here at Council on the draft income tax proposal. On June 21st, we had our first discussion of the legislation that was introduced, and there was a panel presentation from central staff, the city's finance director, Glen Lee, the city law department and outside legal counsel that was retained by the city attorney. On June 30, we held another special meeting of the Finance Committee, and we voted on various amendments to the bill. On June five at the Finance Committee, we voted on the final legislation and recommended it to the full council for adoption. Which brings us to today. So Councilman Council President Harrell, I'd like the sponsors, Councilmember Herbold and councilmembers to want to be able to speak. And then after other council members speak, I'd like to close the discussion.
Speaker 1: Very good, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: And I know Councilmember Gonzalez has an amendment that I think would be appropriate after my context setting of.
Speaker 7: Of.
Speaker 6: The ordinance, so maybe I could speak. And then Councilmember Gonzales, with that.
Speaker 1: That workshop for me.
Speaker 3: I would like to speak after the amendment is voted on.
Speaker 1: Okay. Very good to work through it.
Speaker 7: So as we all know.
Speaker 6: We face a serious problem in the city of Seattle. We have an increasing affordability gap between the haves and the have nots, and the middle class is being squeezed as well. And one of the reasons is our outdated, regressive and unfair tax structure in our state. We have the most regressive system in the nation. Local economist Dick Conway has noted that we finished last. When You Can Sit are the five measures of fairness, transparency, adequacy, stability and economic vitality. In our state, the top 1% only pay 2.4% of their income in taxes, whereas the poorest 20% pay almost 17% of their income. This is a big step forward in Seattle, but it's also hopefully a big step forward for our state. The council bill was developed according to the principles that we developed and called for in resolution 31747 adopted by the Council on May 5th, and is in addition to creating a process and a timeline for ourselves, we also committed to one another that legal viability would be our primary consideration in making decisions around the different elements of this legislation. The outcome has been a 2.25% tax on incomes over $250,000 for individuals, 500,000 for joint filers. And again, that's only on the income above those thresholds. 100% of the income under the thresholds will still be tax free. This is estimated to raise $140 million annually. And we also stuck to the the principles in the original legislation that identified the the purposes for this tax revenue. And those purposes are include lowering the property tax burden and the impact of other regressive taxes, addressing the homelessness crisis, providing affordable housing, education and transit, replacing federal funding potentially lost through federal budget cuts. And. Creating green jobs and meeting carbon reduction goals. And then finally, the costs associated with administering and implementing the tax. It's been designed for simplicity and designed to minimize the costs of implementation. An important thing to keep in mind is only people with qualifying incomes will will need to file. We're hearing from constituents who are concerned that they're going to need to spend money to file a form to demonstrate that they don't need to pay the tax. That is not the way the tax is structured. In a recent poll, 66% of satellites said they support this measure. And this is consistent with the 63% of satellites who voted to support the measure in 2010. In this city, support for tax fairness is increasing, and I hope that that continues throughout the state. Many thanks to the Trump proof coalition. I do want to say just a couple words about an issue that has come up recently. And I think it's also related to the the amendment that Councilmember Gonzalez is bringing up. There's been some concern about how this legislation treats certain types of business income, specifically those businesses that are organized as sole proprietorships, LLC or escorts. And it's important to recognize that not only are individuals taxed in the state in a way that's regressive, but businesses are too. And that's something that, you know, we're going to need to continue to work on. That's part of the commitment of this of this ordinance to dial down the regressive forms of of of taxation. But as it relates specifically to those those three types of businesses, it's important to note that the losses that those businesses and the expenses that those businesses invest in their company are not considered as gross receipts. And for the purposes of taxation, those are those can be recorded as losses on their filing. And so I just want to make that.
Speaker 7: Perfectly clear for for the viewing public.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herbold, Councilmember Gonzalez, did you want to address the amendment at this point?
Speaker 6: Yes. And I'm going to move the amendment first and then have it seconded, and then we can have the discussion. So I'm going to move to amend Council Bill 119002 with this is not marked with a number. Emilio, do I need a reference number or is it just the only amendment?
Speaker 1: Okay. Amendment one and number 1/2, is it okay to move 1/2 for discussion? And Councilman Gonzalez, please explain.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Just really quickly, to dovetail off of what Councilmember Herbold was saying, and I really appreciate your remarks and your recognition of the fact that when we were talking about our tax system, it's important for us to recognize that that the entirety of our tax system is indeed regressive and that the impact that that our tax system has, regardless of whether you're an individual or an entity, is that the truth is that that across the board, we still see an incredible amount of regressive taxes, which means that those who make less pay more in terms of taxes. And one of the my amendment does two things. One is it recognizes that when we're referring to in the ordinance that there is an impact of other regressive taxes, that that includes business and occupation tax rates. And it also clarifies, consistent with the resolution in Section three, that the funding may be used for responding to changes in federal policy, which is consistent with the intent of the resolution that this Council passed earlier this year. And so my my amendment will do two things as it relates to the use of tax receipts. It will acknowledge that some of the funds can be used to take a look at these other regressive taxes, including the business and occupation tax rate. And it also clarifies that the funds could be used to respond to changes in federal policy as as we see fit, as the appropriation authority for the city. And I just I just wanted to point out that when we look at the regressive nature of of of our tax system, particular as it relates to small businesses, one of the things that the that I tap the Washington taxation organization found was that when you look at the tax rates for sales and excise on business, for those businesses that have an income, an average income of 11,900 they pay for. 8% in sales and excise on business. However, if you are a corporation that makes more than an average income of 1.5 million, you only pay 0.7% into the system. And I think we can all agree that that is an upside down system. And it's not fair that very, very large corporations pay only 0.7% into the system, while our beloved small businesses bear the brunt of of that of that particular structure. So with that being said, I am moving for this amendment and would appreciate your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have an amendment. Moved and second it little discussion here comes from Russia wants.
Speaker 3: Thank you. No, I do not support this amendment because, in fact, B.A., taxes are not a regressive tax. B.A. Taxes are only paid by businesses. Working people do not pay tax. Ask yourself, have you ever paid a B.A. tax? In fact, until today, B.A., taxes have been the only taxes collected by the city that are not regressive. And B.A., taxes are basically the only taxes that businesses pay. I want to use the money from the tax the rich ordinance to fund affordable housing, not to cut taxes. Not to cut taxes for corporations like Target and Starbucks, which is what cutting business taxes would do. If we cut sales taxes, then we would be cutting a tax that taxes regular working class people, especially the poor, that I would support. But there is no truth in Reagan's trick. Trickle down economics and cutting business taxes is basically, you know, it's based on that theory. To be clear, B.A., taxes can and should be made much more progressive than they are. We should cut taxes on small businesses, many of whom are owned by women, people of color, immigrant and LGBTQ communities, and raise the taxes on big businesses. I hope that any council member here today who votes in favor of this amendment will support any legislation in the future to make the business tax more progressive. I vote no on this amendment to spend money lowering taxes for corporations like Target and Starbucks.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I can clarify my amendment. My amendment is not a measure that would lower taxes for Starbucks. And I can't remember the other corporation that was named by councilmember. It is specifically designed to begin laying the framework for exactly what she has advocated for just now, which is to set and determine whether there is a more progressive way to to implement taxes on businesses so that we recognize that the small businesses are the ones who need more help, as opposed to those at the top of that income income bracket. And, you know, the the the ITEP recognizes that the Institute on Taxation, Taxation and Economic Policy recognizes that our business tax system in the state of Washington is, in fact, regressive and needs to be more progressive in order to help hold up small businesses within our community. And my or my amendment to this ordinance is designed precisely to allow the foundation to be able to undergo that particular analysis so that we have a progressive model.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Gosar and I had Customer Herbold in Q and then I'll pass. Okay. Customer on Herbal during Q.
Speaker 6: I just want to say that making a tax more progressive is the flip side of making a tax less regressive. And that's what this amendment is intended to say. We're talking about making the different forms of taxation in the city of Seattle less regressive. And one of the things that not many people are aware of is that our taxes on businesses are also regressive. And so it's just simply calling it out to make sure that people are aware that there is regressive ity there, too. And in trying to make our taxation system more progressive, that we intend to do so.
Speaker 7: As well.
Speaker 6: With the the impacts on small businesses.
Speaker 1: Swanson. Q I wasn't I'm probably misreading it, but I didn't read that into the proposed language. I my interpretation was simply to take the receipts or the revenue from this, and it just says use for the filing purposes, including the business and occupation tax rate, which seems to read to me that you could just offset some of the B, you know, for all corporations, regardless as to size. But I'm not reading your meaning into this language.
Speaker 6: So that is that's not the intent. The intent is as it was just described.
Speaker 1: So I understand the intent, but.
Speaker 7: I am reading other.
Speaker 6: Regressive taxes, including the business and the business and occupation tax rate. So it's specifically it's just identifying that this is one such tax that will benefit from addressing the regressive ity.
Speaker 1: Okay. We have Councilmember Swann.
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, just to clarify, if there is a tax that is only levied on businesses and not on working people, by that definition, it is progressive. Unlike a sales tax which falls squarely on the hands of working people, especially the poor, which is a regressive tax. That's a separate point from whether the existing tax on business is progressive or regressive. But then the businesses themselves, absolutely, the current business tax structure is regressive among businesses, and we should absolutely change it to make big corporations pay far more than small businesses. In fact, we should eliminate the tax burden on small business period. However, regardless of intent and attributing every best intentions to council members, the language in the ordinance that is being introduced to this amendment does not actually say that it. What it will do is reduce taxes on small businesses and increase taxes on big business. It will actually by law, what it will do is take the Senate tax into consideration, just like it would take sales tax into consideration and say, should we eliminate this tax? And if all the classes in that group that are being taxed. And furthermore, by law, if you want to make the tax structure of the BNL much more progressive, that actually needs to be taken to the ballot. And so I invite council members to join me in putting something on the ballot where we can we can change that struct tax structure rather than using this vague language, which in reality, in reality, this language has been introduced because business businesses do not support, except for a few exceptions, which I and I applaud them for, that especially big business does not support a tax on the rich because many of them are the richer will be taxed . And so that is why I will oppose this amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. I think we've had enough debate in the language speaks for itself at this point. Any other closing comments for our call for the vote on the amendment that has been moved to the second? Any other questions were good. Okay. So I'm going to ask you to do a voice call and a voice vote and raise your hand if you support has been moved in Second Amendment number one, the language you have it from us has been moved in second. And all those in favor of amendment number one to council bill 119002 vote I in raise your hand.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: If you oppose, vote no and raise your hands. No. No. So six three. So the amendment has been successfully moved. The bill has been successfully minted. Now, let's go back to the base legislation that has been amended. And are there any further comments on that? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Just briefly. I'm really excited to be voting on this today and wanted to spend a minute saying thanks to my colleagues for their support of a couple of amendments that are offered in committee to those amendments, increased transparency and clarity for the establishment of the tax and maintains the Council's authority as the city pursues the tax mechanism . And one of those, the Third Amendment raised the base rate from 2% to 2.25%, and that was adopted unanimously out of committee by our colleagues. And as we discussed the legislation, the the city identified a lot of priorities that are under threat of funding cuts from the current federal administration. My fear was that as we continue to grow, that those cuts, particularly to those most vulnerable of our population that are on Medicaid and Medicare funding, as they can contemplate cutting those funds at the federal level, that we were going to see some really significant impacts to us as a city. So that amendment allowed us to raise a little bit of additional revenue. And I recognize that we have some additional hurdles to cross before implementing the tax. But I'm really grateful to my colleagues for their support of those amendments, and I look forward to seeing how this plays out over the next couple of weeks and months.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Katherine Johnson. I'm going to keep from heading into. I know a few of you have things to say. Customer Beck Show you are on.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you very much. And I want to say thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Swan, for leading this, but also special recognition to my good friend John in the front row. Because you were one of the first people that brought this to my attention that the state legislature was not going to do anything about an income tax and that local cities needed to do it. So for you and to you and to your organization, John Burbank, I want to say thank you for that good work. And just a couple of comments has already been recognized that our state has one, if not the very most regressive tax system in the nation. And it is flatly unfair. We know that. And I think, Councilmember Herbold, you mentioned that the Washington Washington state's lowest earners pay something like 16%, one 6% of their total income in taxes. And where people, families with the highest incomes pay just over 2%, there's 2% of their income in taxes. And besides being just grossly unfair to our neighbors who have the least. What happens is that the city's revenues, which are based on sales tax and property taxes, simply don't keep up with growth. So I think this is an opportunity for us to do what many of you in the audience have already mentioned, and that is that government should have more money to do what we need to do, whether that's fix the roads or pay for libraries or ad parks or deal with homelessness and promote public health and mental health, which are two of my top priorities. Clearly, we need to have a statewide income tax, but our legislature, as we just mentioned a moment ago, isn't going to do that. So having the city take the lead, as we have done, whether that is paid family leave, thank you very much. Or gun responsibility or $15 an hour. Other cities are going to follow this lead. I have heard from a number of people who said, well, people are just going to move out of the city of Seattle. The wealthy are going to move. You know that's not true. And that if it's able to pass and we get past the constitutional muster, other cities are going to jump on this and want to do it just as we are now. So I want to say that in that spirit, we know and I've already been alerted that we can expect a legal challenge the second that the mayor signs this. That said, we go to King County Superior Court. We go on to our Supreme Court. And I would really like to recommend and in this case, I support council members want I would like to see how much of this money can be used to reduce our sales tax. I know that that's an uphill battle, but that's where I would like to first work to invest this money. So during this time where we are facing the legal challenges, that's what I would like to do, is to figure out how can we reduce the sales tax and make our system fairer for everybody.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Russell. Council members to watch.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Brandon Harrell. Washington state and Seattle have had a tax code that is absolutely punishing to poor working class and middle class people for decades. Olympia is run by Republicans and Democrats. And yes, there are differences, very clear differences between those two parties. But one thing that they agree on completely is that their policies benefit big business and the super wealthy. And that is why our movement has done the right thing by not holding our breath for corporate politicians to make a change and build an independent mass movement in Seattle in order to tax the rich. Thanks to the city attorney's office, who have done an incredible amount of work, our city central staff, Councilmember Herbold, and her staff staff members in my office, especially Ted Walden, the Trump Pro Seattle Coalition, but especially the Economic Opportunity Institute and John Burbank and the Transit Writers Union and Katie Wilson and Socialist Alternative. And I have been proud members of that coalition. We need to be crystal clear that the fight is far from over. If you read the op ed from the big business representatives and strategists, they have made it clear that they intend to fight this in the courts rather than city hall. That is why actually we've had we've had to launch a muted battle on city hall. It's not because suddenly the Chamber of Commerce and their representatives on this body here agree with us on tax. But they but because they know that this will go to the courts and they would rather fight it there. And because the movement has been so strong that it is difficult for, you know, for them to fight that battle here. So we will need to fight this battle in the court, and we will need to be there to fight, to win. But throughout history, we've seen that where we have unjust laws, mass movements, when they get organized and decided to fight back, we do not have to accept these unjust laws because we can overturn them. Just one example, Roe versus Wade. The landmark abortion rights law was passed by the Supreme Court to defend women's rights in 1973. Why? What a change at that time. There were no new Supreme Court justices. It was the movement that forced the justices with no choice if they were to maintain their credibility. Our movement will have to and can do the same thing to defend taxing the rich.
Speaker 2: And just like we have.
Speaker 3: Packed City Hall. We will have to pack the courtrooms to make it clear that we will no longer tolerate a system that buries poor and working class people in taxes while giving business and the super rich yet another free ride and a system that underfund affordable housing to the point where thousands are homeless. A system that criminally underfunded education. The Washington State Republican Party is trying to trick people now into thinking that we want to tax everyone. They put out a press advisory today about this ordinance with the title. And I quote, Income tax for all is the real goal as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for other politicians, but as far as I'm concerned, the goal is absolutely to tax the rich and not working people and the middle class. Thank you for all your incredible work building this movement. Thanks to Katy and John especially and all the organizers, including the Neighborhood Action Coalitions, who are the reason this has happened today. When I originally ran for office, Socialist Alternative and I highlighted three demands for Seattle $15 an hour, taxing the rich and rent control. We won the first two because we organized and fought to win. We can win not only rent control, but go towards a society free of exploitation and oppression.
Speaker 1: I think he wants those inspirational words. Councilmember Burgess, did you want to close us out?
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1: Because virtual you got to make sure everyone has had an opportunity to chime in. We're good. We're good. Okay, Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think we've documented really well over the last several weeks with the experts that have appeared before us, with the various reports that we have reviewed, that Washington state's tax system is unfair and is not just. And that, in fact, is my core motivation for supporting this legislation today. State tax reform is needed here in Washington state so that our lowest income residents pay less. Our middle class neighbors pay about the same, and our highest income residents pay more. That would be adjust system of taxation to our business friends, small businesses and large businesses. And I love all of you. It's important that we'll let that go. It's it's important that it's important that you realize that state and local income taxes are, in fact, deductible from federal income tax. And so I would ask our business friends, would you rather send your revenues to Washington, D.C., or keep them local to improve our situation here in Seattle and in Washington State? And I think that's an easy answer. So I join with Councilmember Herbold and the folks who have advocated for this change. We want to compel and jumpstart a conversation in our city and state that will result in the status quo being changed so we can move forward to a much more just and fair tax system in Washington. And that will be for the benefit of all of us, including business.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Okay. I think we are ready to vote. Please call the role on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 5: Burgess Gonzalez. Hi. Herbal Hi, Johnson. Suarez Oh, Brian. Hi.
Speaker 3: So I.
Speaker 5: Beg. Shall I? President Herrell. Hi. Nine in favor. Not opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it for the record. For the record, the bill passed and there was signage. Please read item number two into the record and you can read the short title if you can. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE imposing an income tax on high-income residents; providing solutions for lowering the property tax burden and the impact of other regressive taxes, replacing federal funding potentially lost through federal budget cuts, providing public services, including housing, education, and transit, and creating green jobs and meeting carbon reduction goals; and adding a new Chapter 5.65 to the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07102017_CB 119005 | Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it for the record. For the record, the bill passed and there was signage. Please read item number two into the record and you can read the short title if you can.
Speaker 5: Agenda Item to cancel 119005 relating to the redevelopment Yasser terrorist by the Housing Authority, the city of Seattle. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: So let's give a moment for the crowd to settle down.
Speaker 8: I'm not big on this. I just want to see what happens.
Speaker 1: Me and Councilman Burgess, you do have the floor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This ordinance modifies the agreement between the Seattle Housing Authority and the city. That was it. It was adopted in 2012 over the. Yes, the Terrace Redevelopment Project. And this amendment does several things. First, it authorizes $13 million in additional city housing funds for three developments in the phase three part of the Hassler Terrace redevelopment. It revises requirements related to housing occupancy by returning yes, Hassler Terrace residents and other low income households, and it amends the allowable locations for pink patch community gardens to include a stretch of property along Interstate five and adjacent to Hassler Terrace. These funds will be used to support the development of at least 195 replacement housing units and 130 units of affordable housing to families at 60% of area median income or less. This legislation also allows a number of replacement housing units east of Bourne Avenue to increase from 140 to 190. And it prioritizes preschool classrooms in the project at Eisler Way and 12th Avenue. If the city provides capital funding for the classrooms.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And good questions about this legislation. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: Burgess Hi.
Speaker 7: Gonzalez, I Herbold Johnson Suarez.
Speaker 5: O'Brien. All right. So what.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 7: Shire.
Speaker 5: President Harrell. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items three and four into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the redevelopment of Yesler Terrace by the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle; authorizing the Mayor to execute a second amendment to the Yesler Terrace Cooperative Agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle that was authorized by Ordinance 123961; and authorizing the directors of the Office of Housing and Department of Neighborhoods to implement the Cooperative Agreement as amended. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07102017_Res 31759 | Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Any further comments on these appointments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments vote I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read agenda item number five into the record.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee Agenda Item five Resolution 317 59 relating to the Seattle Park District, establishing the Committee Oversight Committee and setting its membership in terms of office and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember Juarez.
Speaker 8: Q I know you've all been on the edge of your seat on this one. Yes, this resolution ratifies the establishment, the Municipal Park District Oversight Committee. This resolution lists out the position numbers and appointed authority for the various positions on the oversight committee. This will not disrupt the terms that have been already been confirmed. The committee members have been fulfilling their duties and will continue to do so. The committee recommends adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Any further questions on this resolution? Those in favor of adopting the resolution. Please vote i. I those opposed vote no. The the motion carries and resolutions adopted and chair was signed it. We have. We've had a number six, so we'll go to item number. No, we have not six. I'm sorry. I have my pleasure. Please read agenda item number six. And to the record.
Speaker 5: The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118 974 Relating to housing and building maintenance. Amending limits for code sections 22.220 2.0 8020 2.206.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 80.0. 90.1 ten 131 4161 7022 point 14.0 50 end point zero 86 antimony Ortiz 1240 11. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Seattle Park District; establishing the Community Oversight Committee and setting its membership and terms of office; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07102017_CB 118974 | Speaker 5: The report of the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118 974 Relating to housing and building maintenance. Amending limits for code sections 22.220 2.0 8020 2.206.0 20.0 40.0 50.0 80.0. 90.1 ten 131 4161 7022 point 14.0 50 end point zero 86 antimony Ortiz 1240 11. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Johnson, thank you.
Speaker 9: This is the rental registration and inspection ordinance and probably the reason why everybody else is still here with us this afternoon. I'm really proud of the progress we've made so far on improvements to the rental registration and inspection ordinance. The bill, as voted out of committee, made five changes. One of those changes was technical in nature, but the other four made some pretty significant differences. And I'd like to thank Councilmember Herbold for bringing those amendments forward. They incorporate references to requirements related to lead paint modify. The percentage of units selected for inspection requires inspection reports from private inspectors and amends requirements related to lead paint, carbon monoxide alarms, minimum fire and safety requirements, improving security standards and other technical corrections. We had asked for a little bit of additional time between the vote committee and the full council vote in order to better identify a range of issues within the checklist to better classify failures. One of those failures that we hear a lot from the private sector landlords are that tenants disable their own smoke detectors. It's one of the most common, if not the most common failure that we get in our rental registries and inspection ordinance. And obviously a very different type of failure than the kinds of failures that we heard during public comment, like very significant mold issues or other safety issues. So we were intending to try to identify a set of ways to respond to that checklist. We just didn't quite run run into enough time to be able to do that. So we did set up a pathway that allows the department through director's role to continue to work with community partners and landlords and others to identify a lot of issues identified by Washington can Columbia Legal Services and other folks during the public comment . So I believe this is a really good step forward and continues to provide important protections for the 50% plus of our city who rent for their housing and really look forward to seeing what the outcomes of that additional work by the department looks like and commit to our friends who are still here that we're going to continue to do work in this fall's budget in order to make sure that we're adequately funding the department to continue to do their work. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Captain Johnson.
Speaker 9: I'm sure Councilmember Herbold has something similar.
Speaker 1: To Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. You're good.
Speaker 6: Now. A couple of minutes. Oh, yeah, a minute.
Speaker 4: 30 seconds.
Speaker 6: I just want to thank the community partners as well as landlords for sharing their concerns with my office and thank Councilmembers Johnson O'Brien for supporting the amendments that I move forward during committee. In particular, the creating criteria for requiring additional units for inspection, I thought was very important. DCI had the the administrative discretion to to do that and has had it for a number of years. But we keep hearing of buildings that fail their REO inspection, but that aren't getting the additional inspections of units prior to a decision being made of whether or not these buildings are actually passing, but they're failing individual inspections without having a trigger for inspecting the whole building. So this is really, I think, important in identifying not just the need to correct violations within individual buildings, but to make sure that that's not indicative of other problems in the building. In addition, the reduction of the amount of notice to property owners of units selected for inspection I think addresses another sort of problem that has been identified with this program since its inception, which is there's among some landlords, certainly not all. There is some gaming of the system when landlords know which units are going to be inspected and they have a lot of notice, they are able to go in, fix those those problems quickly so that there's no indication to the to the department that there may be a problem in the in the building. And then lastly, the request that inspectors leave information in the unit after completing an investigation I think is really important to increasing tenant knowledge. In a building of the conditions and in ways to address those conditions in the future. And then finally, there's a signal of this council's interest in the future to address the program fees in such a way that we can evaluate and address any imbalances in the fee structure for small landlords while continuing to set the fees to cover the cost of administering the program.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Catherine Herbert. Any further comments? Thank you very much. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 5: Burgess. Gonzalez Herbal. Hi. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien. Swan. I beg your president. Herald. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: The bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read Agenda number seven. You can read the short title, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to housing and building maintenance, amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 22.202.080, 22.206.020, 22.206.040, 22.206.050, 22.206.080, 22.206.090, 22.206.110, 22.206.130, 22.206.140, 22.206.160, 22.206.170, 22.214.050, and 22.214.086; and amending Ordinance 124011. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_07102017_CB 119008 | Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any comments on those in favor of filing clerk file 314337. Please vote i i those opposed vote no the motion carries and the clerk file is placed on file. Please read agenda item number ten The.
Speaker 5: Report Short.
Speaker 1: Title.
Speaker 5: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item ten Council 119008 relating to the Grants Fund for non city sources. The committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you for those tracking this at home. This is a grant acceptance ordinance. The city law requires that when we receive grants from other entities, the city council goes through a process to do that. This grant acceptance ordinance includes a number of sources. The largest one is a $50 million grant we're receiving from the Federal Transit Administration and a $7.3 million grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council for the Center City Streetcar Connector. It also includes a $9 million fast grant. Fast is from the federal government, also for the Lander Street overpass and smaller grants for safe house schools and bike ped improvements from watchdog.
Speaker 1: Thank you, councilman brian. Are there any further comments? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to make note that in committee I proposed an amendment to this legislation, and I thank the committee members for supporting that that that amendment. It adds a new Section five as it relates specifically to the streetcar project, requiring that the executive report to council detailing the financial operating plan and projected performance measures . And it adds a requirement that potential funding sources be identified if operations funding proves insufficient and additional potential funding sources for construction if the FTA funding doesn't come through. And then finally it asks for projections of the streetcar fund balance. And how the Executive intends to retire the Interphone loan for operating the South Lake Union streetcar. There are a lot of good projects in this grant acceptance ordinance, namely funding for lander, pedestrian crossing safety, school zone safety, neighborhood greenways, intersection improvements and pavement paving projects. I If the streetcar funding was the only item in in the ordinance, I would very likely be voting no on it. I'm very concerned that we have an overly optimistic perspective on both the operations costs as well as the the funding that's available for construction. The grant is for 50 million. It's part of a $75 million request. I'm concerned that we won't get the full amount. Given the chaos in D.C. right now. The capital cost is estimated to be 152 million as it relates to operations. We're making a lot of assumptions around fare revenues, and I'm really concerned that we're going to end up cannibalizing metro bus service hours to pay for streetcar operations when the fare revenues aren't what we anticipate them them being. But that said, I appreciate that the amendment will get us a report to the Council by September 30th about the risk and funding for operations for the first six years and contingency strategies in the event that revenues don't come in.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold, for the comments, Councilman Bagshaw.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just want to say thank you, Councilmember Herbold. She and I actually share a lot of the same concerns, both in terms of the amount of money, what I think are very overly optimistic estimates on how many people are going to ride. But my concern, in addition to what you were saying, is that we're looking at having designated lanes for the middle part, that is the center city part for the streetcars. But those are not desert dedicated lanes from Mohi to Westlake, nor from Capitol Hill down to Jackson. And if we don't have designated lanes all the way along, it doesn't make any sense to dedicate lanes right through one central city, because the whole point of having the streetcar lines in one center city with dedicated lanes was to move the streetcar faster than cars. And if we don't have that straightened out before construction begins, I fear that we're putting in a tremendous amount of money without the results we want.
Speaker 1: Very good. Council Member Johnson.
Speaker 9: I feel obliged to remind my colleagues at this point that we received a letter from, I think, nearly 70 organizations and strong support of the Center City streetcar, and that ranged from institutions up and along First Avenue like the Pike Place Market and the Pioneer Square Alliance, as well as the Clark Museum and several other not involved directly on the line itself. You know, as someone said to me the other day, without this center city streetcar, we would look an awful lot like a smile with a big missing tooth in the middle. And, you know, that's not a perfect analogy, but I do think that this is a really great opportunity for us to make sure that we do connect those two disconnected systems with something that is going to really work well. I do not share the concerns of my colleagues around some of the operating costs. I do think that there's efficiencies to be gained here by adding a new line and having very similar maintenance loads as we have today. I do believe that this is going to be a good investment for us. I am long a proponent of getting those streetcar lines and frankly all transit into a dedicated right of way. Love to see us implement that. That's really about political will. That's not about anything other than that. So I'm excited to vote yes on this today and excited to see this move forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Catherine Johnson. Catherine Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Just really quickly, I want to express my support of the comments that you just made, Councilmember Johnson, not just because your haircut haircut is on point today, but because you just made some brilliant remarks as well. And I you know, I want to recognize that a lot of those signatories included small businesses, particularly ethnic owned businesses in the Chinatown International District. I had an opportunity to have a conversation with them about the streetcar. And many of them expressed to me, you know, specific concerns around the city, not fulfilling a promise that they felt was made to them when we built the first hill streetcar. And I think it's important to recognize that this connection that we are creating through the the the city connector is an important part of making sure that we connect these different pieces of our city for purposes of economic development. And so I agree with the the analysis that Councilmember Johnson has made in terms of finding efficiencies and making sure that we're still fiscally responsible now. So just wanted to layer on top of that the recognition that I think that this is really critical to continuing to connect our business small, small business centers with each other so that they can benefit as greatly as they can from these transportation investments.
Speaker 1: Very good.
Speaker 3: And just one more and I'll take one minute or less.
Speaker 1: You don't have a nice haircut, though. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead, Councilman Bagshaw. It is.
Speaker 6: A very nice.
Speaker 7: Hair.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I'm going to support this. So I don't want Councilmember Johnson to think I am not. The dedicated land portion is the thing that I really want us to emphasize. If we don't get the dedicated lanes, we're not going to have the business development. So I'm just suggesting as we're going forward and making our decisions here, that we take that that opportunity for the political will and say, if we're going to have a streetcar, it's got to move through traffic. It can't get stuck. So let's let's move forward as you are recommending. I like the idea about having the full smile. I love your metaphor, but we can't have them stuck in traffic up on Broadway and then not have people get on down in the center city. It does not make sense.
Speaker 1: Very good. Okay. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 5: Burgess Gonzalez. Hi, Purple. Hi, Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. Hi, Suzanne. Hi, Bagshaw. Hi, President Herrell. Hi. Nine in favor, nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and show sign it. We've held agenda item number 11, so we've come to the end of the agenda. Are there any further business going for the council? Councilmember O'Brien first.
Speaker 8: Well, I'm sorry, quick. I'm just going to comment on Rob's hair as well.
Speaker 1: That's that. We'll come back to that. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I have a haircut tomorrow afternoon. I would ask to be excused from full council meetings on July 24th, 31st and August 7th, doing some you.
Speaker 1: August seven is we've moved in second and the cast member can be excused for July 24th, July 31st and August 7th. All those in favor say I. I oppose the ayes have it council member whereas. Did you? I said.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. I was wondering if you wanted to elaborate on any. If we're good, any further business. You know.
Speaker 8: Where he's going.
Speaker 1: To want.
Speaker 3: You, President Howell. I would like to be excused from full council this coming Monday, July 17th.
Speaker 1: July seven. It's a move in a second. The councilman won't be excused for July 17th. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Any further business? Yes. Yes, we have.
Speaker 8: Oh, I have my poster. We have our live in D5 July 22nd on my birthday.
Speaker 1: July 22nd. It has been duly noted. And with that.
Speaker 4: Yes, we will stand adjourned.
Speaker 1: And everyone, have a great afternoon. Jesus. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, including the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2017-2022 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118990 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and show Senate. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 118990. An ordinance relating to grant funds from non city sources. Authorizing the Director of transportation to accept specified grants and executed and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the city. Amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, including the 2017 to 2022 Capital Improvement Program, changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation, revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2017 to 2022. Copy and ratifying and confirming certain player acts. The committee recommends that full council pass the Council bill.
Speaker 0: It comes from Johnson pinch hit for Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This is commonly referred to as the Grant's acceptance ordinance for a start. It's accepting funds that are coming to us from the state, from the region and from the federal government to continue to plan and maintain and build out our transportation infrastructure. Happy to answer questions if people have any.
Speaker 0: Any fried food.
Speaker 4: For adoption.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Bagshaw, I. Herbold II Johnson. I was president in Harrell six in favor and.
Speaker 0: Unopposed bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number two. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to grant funds from non-City sources; authorizing the Director of Transportation to accept specified grants and execute related agreements for and on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, including the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation; revising allocations and spending plans for certain projects in the 2017-2022 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118993 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item for Council Bill 118993. An ordinance relating to residential rental properties amending sections 2.24.060.070.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code, requiring that landlords provide information to tenants about how to register to vote and how to update voter registration information. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Swann.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President. This is an ordinance to require landlords to provide new tenants with voter registration forms and information along with the information for tenants. Back at that, they are already required to provide renters a statistically less likely to be registered to vote than homeowners. And this isn't surprising because renters who are being displaced by rising rents have registered to vote again at each new address. This also means that people who are more likely to be renters, such as low income people, young people, immigrants, people of color are less likely to be registered to vote. This legislation is one part of addressing this statistical disenfranchisement, especially given that we are a mail in ballot state. Although obviously the problem is far bigger than the legislation can address. The only objection I've heard so far to helping tenants register to vote as. I'm from the ultra conservative Rental Housing Association. Perhaps they are worried that if more renters vote, more elected officials will support rent control and other tenants rights. But other than that, we have had tremendous support for this bill. I wanted to thank the Seattle Department of Construction Inspection. Ali Banerjee from dental staff and King County Elections were working with us on this legislation and for agreeing to help implement it in a way so as to maximize its effectiveness. And I think especially Ali Banerjee's expertize on this and other demonstrator installation has been truly invaluable. I also wanted to thank our two members, Juarez and Gonzalez, who were very helpful in our committee discussion. And I want to particularly extend, thanks to Zachary Thibeault from the Capitol Hill Community Council, who originally brought the need for this to our attention and has been part of the process all along. And the committee recommended unanimously that we vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Swan. I do believe we have two amendments that we can speak on, if anyone, before we talk about the amendments, if anyone had any comments on the base legislation first, now would be the time. I may see some comments after it's all done, but why don't we walk through the amendments? Councilmember Wallis, thank you.
Speaker 1: And I want to apologize. We had a bit of a cut, a typo in our referral, and I had to fix it. So for ease of just of discussion, we have Councilmember Gonzalez and I have two amendments, and the first one is Amendment A, so I would move to amend Council Bill 118.0. How do I say this point? 993 It's still the lawyer in me, basically this amendment that by the way.
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Let's do it. So let's. There's been a motion and it has been seconded to and well, you haven't described the amendment yet, but I'll describe it as amending the Council bill 118993 by adding a new Section three and I think by remembering the remaining sections. And now you describe what you're doing. Mm hmm. Very good.
Speaker 1: So what we have here and we discussed this at committee and if council members want wants to comment, that would be great. But we discussed it committee and with Stsci and a representative from King County election who had a representative here that the requirement to track voter registration to see the the productiveness or how well this would work in getting more voters or renters to sign up to vote that we would like to see the information come back to us. But anyway that this requirement would not be an added burden or administrative task to perform. So basically, it would just track voter registration to see how successful this this council bill would be.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any discussions on this particular motion? It has been moved in second. All those in favor of. I'll just refer to this benefit, number one, if I may. All those in favor of amendment no. Amendment number one, say I, I as opposed no one has passed councilmember words. You have a Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This is amendment number two. I moved to amend council bill 118993. This amendment goes is more of a technical amendment. So when we went back and looked at the language, we just basically changed the language from the packet that the packet includes the summary so the landlord or the rent would only have to produce one single packet. So it isn't anything real substantive, it's just making it easier for the landlord to hand out one particular packet to the potential renter.
Speaker 0: Very good. Any further comments on amendment number two has been moved in second and already all those in favor of amendment number two say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now we have a piece of bass legislation has been amended twice. Are there any further comments from any parties? I just wanted to say one thing, and that is that one could argue, why are we asking landlords to do this? We have been trying to we, I think, appropriately enact landlord tenant laws for the protection of tenants, particularly dealing with unscrupulous landlords. And we've seen some horror stories out there, but I think if we look at what's happening in this country and we look at the history of voter suppression, that I think a great city will look at every opportunity to try to enhance voting, every transaction, every opportunity. So I think that it actually is good policy. And as Councilmember Walsh, I think astutely pointed out, that we're trying to do this at no cost or low cost to the landlord. It's I had actually had my staff figure out where the forms were and how it is to be done. So I'd like to think of this legislation. And again, I want to thank community and councilmembers for stepping up with this legislation and just thinking of that here in Seattle, we will do everything possible to make it convenient for voters to vote. It's one of our most important civic duties. And so in that sense, I think this is a great direction to go. And again, I want to applaud those that have thought of it, and it's my pleasure in supporting it. Any further comments and we will vote. Councilmember.
Speaker 2: Just a quick question if.
Speaker 0: I ask.
Speaker 2: Before. I know. I know, but I.
Speaker 0: Couldn't help myself, could you?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, it's a good idea. Are we asking for landlords to actually put voter registration.
Speaker 1: Paper.
Speaker 2: In the packet or just an announcement or direction on how people can do it online? Not the actual forms. Okay.
Speaker 0: So it's part of a packet that is already we provide a packet already for landlords to give to tenants during the right.
Speaker 2: So a point that was brought up earlier, it's pretty easy to go online to change your voter registration. I just want to make sure people know about that tool as well. You know, they get something and they lose it. Yeah, actually, I mean, the online tools are important even for landlord tenant rights because Dems often seek they are I mean, they are information packet. They often many rely on the online version, but we don't want to just have the online version because there's lots of tenants, especially the tenants who need to register to vote and don't have access to that information are probably less likely to go online. So we want to make sure all of those are covered.
Speaker 0: And to sort of pile on at that point. Obviously, people are relocating when they're signing a new lease for an apartment. And so at that point is a sort of an opportune time to change your voter registration documents.
Speaker 2: That's a good reminder.
Speaker 0: It's a good reminder during their change of residence. Okay. So those please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Sergeant, I.
Speaker 1: Beg your Herbold. Johnson. Whereas President Herrell I six in favor not opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and then Cheryl sign it please read the report of the park shall senator libraries and Waterfront Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.060, 7.24.070 and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code; requiring that landlords provide information to tenants about how to register to vote and how to update voter registration information. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118960 | Speaker 0: The bill passed and then Cheryl sign it please read the report of the park shall senator libraries and Waterfront Committee.
Speaker 3: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee. Agenda Item five Council Bill 11960. An ordinance related to the City Light Department and the Department of Parks and Recreation declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the city light department and transferring jurisdiction of the former Lakewood substation from the City Light Department to the Department of Parks and Recreation for Open Space, Park and Recreation Purposes. The committee recommends a bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Worse.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This council bill would authorize Seattle City Light to transfer an old substation at Genesee Park to the Department of Parks and Recreation at a cost of 210,000. The committee unanimously recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Bagshaw. High Herbold. Johnson. Whereas I President Harrell high six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number six. You could read the shorter version. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to the City Light Department and the Department of Parks and Recreation; declaring certain real property rights surplus to the needs of the City Light Department; and transferring jurisdiction of the former Lakewood Substation from the City Light Department to the Department of Parks and Recreation for open space, park, and recreation purposes. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118975 | Speaker 3: Agenda item six Council Bill 118975. An ordinance related to a settlement agreement between the city, the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and the Alliance for Pioneer Square. Related to an appeal of the city's final environmental impact statement for the Alaskan Way Promenade and Overlook Walk's projects, the committee recommends the council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Worse.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The Pioneer Square Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement is in response to an appeal of the final year for the redevelopment of Alaskan Way after the viaduct comes down. The agreement does eight things very quickly allows public access to the habitat bench, increases funding for East-West connections in the future. Proposed Leddy provides funding for the Alliance for Pioneer Square to assist with the construction, coordination and outreach. And the community extends existing low rate parking agreements for off street parking to support tourism and commercial activities. Coordinates. Bus schedules to not overload or slow transit flow on Alaskan way after light rail opens to West Seattle Metro will reduce bus traffic on Alaska way to not duplicate rail routes. It also to narrow Alaskan way from seven and eight lanes to five and six lanes. And finally, it maintains a two way traffic on Columbia Street. The committee unanimously recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Then any further comments?
Speaker 3: Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. I just want to note that the provisions in the settlement include bus service from West Seattle White Center in Berrien. The busses that currently use the Alaskan Way Viaduct to access downtown Seattle will access downtown from Alaskan Way and that on Alaskan way. Metro will not operate more than 650 busses per day until sound transit light rail to the Alaska junction goes into service.
Speaker 1: And this would.
Speaker 3: Also apply when Alaskan Way opens to busses in 2020 until 2023, when light rail is planned to reach West Seattle. One thing I want to just note it's really important to keep in mind that busses will no longer be able to use the Alaskan Way Viaduct when that's removed in 2019.
Speaker 1: So for roughly a year, the busses.
Speaker 3: That we're talking about as part of the settlement will actually need to have an alternative or an alternate route to access downtown. This is something that I know Scott and King County are working to address in one city, one center city process. But there isn't a formal proposal yet to deal with this level of complexity that will significantly impact bus riders in West Seattle.
Speaker 0: Correct. Any further comments? Thanks for those comments, Councilman Herbold. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: So want make sure I herbold i Johnson Johnson whereas I President Herrell high six in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number seven. You can read the church title. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to a settlement agreement between the City, the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and the Alliance for Pioneer Square related to an appeal of the City’s Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk projects; approving the agreement and authorizing the Directors of the Office of the Waterfront and the Department of Transportation to implement the terms of the settlement agreement. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06192017_CB 118979 | Speaker 3: Agenda item seven Council Bill 118979 An ordinance relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation Councilmember.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Seattle Art Museum Operations and Maintenance Agreement. This Council bill makes slight changes to an existing agreement with the Seattle Art Museum that was approved in 2006. Very briefly, this change would allow the Seattle Art Museum gives them responsibility to maintain vegetation on Edwards Park Beach, and it also gives the art museum the ability to enforce DPR rules governing public conduct on the boulevard near Sculpture Park and Myrtle Edwards Park. Beach enforcement, quote unquote, is generally educational. And for many people, all the rules of the Park Sale Art Museum would not be arresting people or giving out citations. The committee unanimously. Recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Bagshaw, I. Purple. Hi, Johnson. Hope for us. All right. President Herrell I six in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and share with Senate. Please read agenda item number eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent to amend the existing Operation and Maintenance Agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Seattle Art Museum concerning their roles in operation and maintenance of portions of Alaskan Way Boulevard and Myrtle Edwards Park that are operated as part of the Olympic Sculpture Park. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06122017_Res 31757 | Speaker 1: Thank you much the bill passed and there was signage we may there are some interest, I've been told, of taking the climate change resolution out of order. Councilmember O'Brien, would you like to address that?
Speaker 0: Yes, I'd move to adopt resolution 31757 as the first item under committee reports today.
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry, Madam Clerk. I didn't share that with you. So we're just making a motion to change the order. Just to be clear, this is not the subject of vote, and it's been moved in second. And so it's removed in second to move to place that agenda item. To agenda item number one. All those and any comments. All those in favor of that change. Vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So let's start with that particular agenda item. And Madam Clerk, can you read that went into the record.
Speaker 8: Resolution 317 57 relating to the Office Sustainability Environment, affirming the City of Seattle's commitment to meet or exceed goals established in the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'll go ahead and start by moving 31757. Thank you. I want to thank all the folks that come out today and have come out over the years in favor of Seattle taking bold action on climate change. It's it's the folks in this room and thousands of others throughout the city like you that have consistently elected elected officials in this city, those of us here and our predecessors that are committed to making taking bold action on climate change. Sometimes you make it easy, but it's a lot of hard work to do. And I really appreciate that. We know in this room the threats that climate change posed to our society, not just in our city, but around the world, and that we're already seeing some of those threats being realized, whether we're talking about ocean acidification, reduced snowpack, less clean drinking water, rising sea levels, increased storm activity. We know, in fact, here in the city of Seattle, we're already slated to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to mitigate those impacts. And that's in a city like Seattle. They can afford to do that. We know as cities around the country and around the world, especially in communities who had nothing to do with pumping the carbon into the atmosphere, are suffering the most and have no resources to mitigate it. We have an obligation and a responsibility to take that action. Now, a little over a week ago, Donald Trump took some unilateral action to remove the United States from the Paris climate accord, putting the United States in with Syria and Nigeria as the only two. Sorry. Nicaragua and Syria as the only two. The only three countries that are not part of the Paris climate accord. What you've seen since then is cities like Seattle, states like Washington move swiftly to collaborate with other jurisdictions around the country. And what's coming forward is a movement that I believe will demonstrate to the rest of the world that despite our elected president, Donald Trump, abdicating, abdicating the leadership role, the United States should be playing as the country that is most responsible for the cumulative emissions of carbon in the atmosphere over history. Stepping back from that leadership role that cities and states will step forward to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States will, in fact, live up to the Paris climate agreements through our own local and subregional actions. Now, the Paris Climate Accord calls for actions to maintain climate, a climate no more than 1.5 degrees above historical levels. And there's some question whether even that is enough. We also have questions about whether the actions outlined in the Paris climate accord are going to even get us to that 1.5. We know that we have to move aggressively and swiftly. Seattle has a very bold climate action plan that was adopted a few years ago in this resolution. Commits us to that. But that plan assumes actions at the federal level like increased fuel standards and automobiles. Some of those assumptions may no longer be true under this administration. What this resolution does is it asks our Office of Sustainability and Environment to go back and reevaluate that climate action plan, making new assumptions based on this administration's abdication of leadership on climate and figuring out what additional actions we have to take locally. And in addition, work with other cities and states to show leadership, as we've heard from others today. When you're in a hole, the first thing you want to do is stop digging. We have to stop the programs that are already causing damage at the top of that list, as you heard today. Public comment is the coal powered electricity that's generated in Montana but shipped into Washington state over wires. Now, in the city of Seattle, we don't use any of that coal generate electricity. But many of us are customers of Puget Sound energy for their natural gas. And the customers throughout the region use Puget Sound energy for their electricity. We want to see Puget Sound Energy shut down the Colstrip Power plant as soon as possible so that Washington state can be coal free electricity throughout the whole state. We also need to prevent new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure from being built. And if we are truly going to be a leader as governor, Inslee joined wanted to join with Governor Cuomo from New York and Governor Brown from California in stating that we will not we will not be in making these investments and instead will live up to this Paris climate accord. It's critically important that these new infrastructure projects not be built. We call upon the state to not allow the Vancouver oil export terminal to be built. The Colombo methanol export facility cannot be built. We also look around the region to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion up in British Columbia and ask that that expansion not take place either. And then we need to do more investments right here locally. We need to increase the adoption of solar, especially as the price and efficiency comes up. In this climate, we can have we can figure out how to generate so much more electricity. If those empty roof tops were covered with solar panels, we need to continue to invest in walkable, bikeable, transit friendly neighborhoods so that folks have alternatives to burning fossil fuels. We need to draft rapid adoption of electric vehicle infrastructure, not just in the wealthier neighborhoods, but throughout the city of Seattle. Electric vehicles are moments away from being the most cost effective vehicle that anyone can own. And we need to make sure our city is ready to embrace that when our consumers, our residents are ready to buy and use those electric vehicles. We need to make sure that we continue to build the most efficient, build energy efficient buildings in the world. And we need to take actions like labeling gas pumps. Thank you for coming out and testifying for your ongoing work on that and to the young folks in the audience. Thank you for your activism. You're absolutely right. When you look at us and say that our generation has not done enough well, will we hang on here for a few more years? We're going to do as much as we can, and we know that we're going to still leave a lot of work to you and your colleagues . And we hope we can at least keep this ship turned in the right direction so that you have less work to do. Colleagues, I really appreciate working with a bunch of folks who care passionately about the climate. I'm lucky to spend a lot of time working on this, but it's it's so much easier to do. And it's a council who firmly believes in this. So thank you for your support. It's time.
Speaker 1: That's very strong.
Speaker 5: I want to say thank you, Councilmember O'Brien, for your leadership on this and for all of you who've come out today. This is critically important, and I am just delighted to be a co-sponsor of this legislation without going back in and repeating everything that Councilmember O'Brien just said. I just want to add my voice to the fact that it's absolutely shocking and inexcusable that our president of this United States has withdrawn us from the Paris Accord. And as Mike mentioned, the idea that we are in the company of Nicaragua and Syria as being the only two in the world that are not signing up on this is just embarrassing to me. But it gives us the opportunity to lead as a city. And we're joining wonderful cities across the United States who have already stepped up. I appreciate what Mayor de Blasio said in New York. It's a sad state of affairs when localities have to do what the federal government should be doing. But we know the cavalry's not coming from the other Washington right now. So stepping up just as Pittsburgh and parents did. Again, our president tried to divide Pittsburgh and Paris, and instead the two mayors came together and said, we're going to put aside parochial politics and embrace the global challenge of fighting climate, climate change. So, you know, God bless the people that are working so hard, coming together and saying we're not going to be cowed by this president . And I just really want to recognize the fact that Portland and Vancouver, B.C., and our friends in California are doing a lot of work. We want to be joining them. So again, thanks to the young people who came out and to all of you, because you're the ones that are helping us make a difference.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Swann.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Harrell. I want to thank all the activists to Seattle and Councilmember O'Brien for bringing this resolution. Donald Trump and the billionaire class are dangerously out of touch with the urgent need for dramatic action on climate change. And they are out of touch with the majority of humanity, which is now very clear. This is not 30 years ago when there was an actual debate about climate change. Most of humanity is very clear about the dangers of climate change. Trump's rejection of the Paris climate agreement, unfortunately, as weak and inadequate as the agreement is, is a really important example of how out of touch he is. The Paris Climate Agreement only had voluntary targets and at the time it was passed. You will all remember fellow activists that we were worldwide. Activists were outraged by how ineffectual it turned out to be. But Trump's rejection of even this ineffectual agreement means that he has no intention of having even limited goals. And it's also a reminder of how intense is the nexus between his billionaire dominated administration and the oil lobby executives. And consistent with all this. Just today, Trump bragged on social media about having opened a new coal mine. So these resolutions such as these are extremely important, but more and more important is the activism that goes behind it. I really appreciate that the resolution goes farther than the Paris Climate Agreement, and it pushes for the Seattle City Employees Retirement System Board to divest from fossil fuels like Trump's new coal mine. And everyone here should support the fossil fuel divestment campaign by 350 and indigenous activists in our city to truly invest the resources of the world in transforming production and transportation towards clean energy. Resources, in my view, will require a socialist economy where resources are democratically owned by working people and resource use is democratically decided and dictated by human and environmental need, not by the greed of an elite. The Top End is dictated by the creation of living wage jobs in the renewable energy sector. However, until we go to such an economy, campaigns like the divestment campaign can have a huge impact. And that is exactly what our movement needs. And I'll vote yes on this resolution.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any further comments before I call for the vote? Outstanding comments. I simply say that when Azura turns 44, he and I will continue to fight on climate change. Where the rest of you will be too old to do it. I'll see you there. And with that, I move to adopt resolution 31757. Second, it's been moved. And second, that the resolution be adopted. Any further comments? Those in favor of adopting the resolution vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries the resolution adopted chair will sign it.
Speaker 7: I'm probably not on here. I want to make.
Speaker 2: Just a little clarification about Nicaragua and Syria. Nicaragua did not approve join because they didn't think it was strong enough. Syria, of course, is being shredded by lust for fossil fuels and that's why they didn't join.
Speaker 1: Thanks for the clarification. Like anyone else like. I'm just saying, we have to go back. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Please read. We've held agenda item number one. So please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION relating to the Office of Sustainability and Environment; affirming The City of Seattle’s commitment to meet or exceed goals established in the Paris Agreement. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06122017_CB 118967 | Speaker 1: Thanks for the clarification. Like anyone else like. I'm just saying, we have to go back. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Please read. We've held agenda item number one. So please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.
Speaker 8: Report the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee agenda item to cancel all 118 967 relating to the Department of Finance Administrative Services declaring the vacant property located 8646 45th Avenue South, a surplus the city's needs authorizing instead sale of said property authorizing Director of Finance and administrative services to execute all documents for the sale and transfer of the property. Reserving permanent utilities, marketplace and property rights and interest conveyed by the utility has been under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities and directing lo how the proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. Recommends that the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This ordinance declares a property a very small piece of property.
Speaker 4: At 86, 46, 45th Avenue South to be.
Speaker 0: Surplus to the city's needs and authorizes its sale to the property owner of the adjacent property. This is a small.
Speaker 4: Strip of land, about.
Speaker 0: 596 square feet in size. It was part of a large property that the city acquired in 1936 to establish fourth Fifth Avenue South and to install a public sewer line. The adjacent property.
Speaker 4: Has legal access via an alley in the rear of the property, although they currently use.
Speaker 0: Daily access across the front of the city owned property. The city evaluated the property for possible city uses recommends that it be declared as surplus to the city. SPU The public utility, will hold an easement to gain access to the property for access to utilities. Committee recommends the adoption of the ordinance.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 6: Whereas.
Speaker 2: O'Brien so want I beg Sharna Burgess.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: Herbold Johnson President Harrell right. Eight in favor not opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and show Senate. Please read items three through seven into the record agenda. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services; declaring the vacant property located at 8646 45th Ave S. 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; reserving a permanent utility easement; placing the property rights and interests conveyed by the utility easement under the jurisdiction of Seattle Public Utilities; and directing how proceeds from the sale shall be distributed. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_06052017_CB 118965 | Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report from the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee.
Speaker 1: The report is Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. Jan Item one Constable 118 965 Imposing a tax on engaging in the business of distributing sweetness sweetened beverages. Adding a new Chapter 5.53 to the limits for code and amending Saddam's Code Sections five point 30.0 ten five point 30.25 point K. 5.30 .06. C. 5.50 5.0 ten 5.50 55.0. 45.50 5.0. 60.8 5.50 5.1. 50.80 5.50 5.1 65. 5.50 5.220 and 5.50 5.2 30. The committee recommends that the full council pass the bill as amended with the divided court with councilmembers Burgess, Johnson, O'Brien, Gonzalez in favor and councilmembers Herbold and so on. Opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Before I relinquish the mic to Councilmember Burgess to present the Bass legislation. Just based on previous discussions, we have six six amendments. And so why don't we let Customer Burgess discuss the Bass legislation and I'll just keep working down the order. And Katherine Johnson did a good job during the prep time, so we already knew the order and the discussions. So, Councilman Burgess, one should lead us with the Bass legislation.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I'm going to walk through a brief timeline of how the council considered this legislation. I'll then talk about the basic motivation and justification for the tax. I'll read a section of the basic legislation and then yield back to Council President Harold to walk us through the amendments. So the Council began consideration of this matter in the spring of 2016, over a year ago, and that included meeting with various community groups. Public health advocates got green, for example, labor folks a wide variety of business interests. On February 21st of this year, Mayor Murray mentioned in his State of the City address that he would be forwarding this legislation to the council, and we received that on May one. The committee held for discussions of this legislation on May three, May 17, May 26 and May 31. In all of that work, what we found is that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible that sugar sweetened beverage consumption leads to negative health outcomes. Communities of color and young people are disproportionately targeted by the beverage industry's advertising and marketing campaigns. Black children and teenagers see twice as many ads for soda and other sweetened beverages compared to white children and other teens. Sugary drinks are the leading source of excess calories, far surpassing other snacks and sweets that may also have other nutritional benefits. Liquid sugar has zero nutritional benefits. Sugar sweetened beverage consumption is linked to the development of many serious chronic illnesses, including type two diabetes, obesity, heart disease, hypertension and dental disease. Daily consumption of just one sugary drink increases a child's chance of obesity by 55% and diabetes by 26%. These diseases disproportionately impact communities of color. Prevalence of obesity is highest among black adults, followed by Hispanic, white and Asians. Black and Hispanic adults are twice as likely to have diabetes than their white counterparts. Black adults are more likely to have cardiovascular disease. Sugar sweetened beverage taxes work. Other jurisdictions where these taxes have been imposed have seen a drop in sugar sweetened beverage consumption. Based on those facts the ordinance declares in Section one. That the city finds and declares that the expansion of access to healthy and affordable food. Closing the food security gap. Promoting healthy nutrition choices. Reducing disparities in social, developmental and educational readiness and learning for children. Assisting high school graduates to enter college. And expanding services for the birth to five population and their families are of utmost importance to creating a thriving and livable city for all of the people of Seattle. Therefore, through this ordinance, the city intends to exercise its taxing authority as granted by the Washington State Constitution, and is authorized by the Washington State Legislature to raise general revenue for the city and to use that revenue to provide broad based public benefits for residents by funding programs that achieve these purposes. Council President Herrell. This was adopted and recommended for passage by the committee.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Burgess, and thank you for your consistent leadership in this regard. We appreciate this. So we're going to start off with Councilmember Herbold. If you're so prepared to talk about what we will refer to as Amendment G. To Councilmember Herbold, you have the floor.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Let's get myself ready here. I thought we were taking these in order, but I can quickly get situated here, so I have two. I want amendment that accomplishes two things. And it is entitled Council Amendment G two and it is on the Goldenrod paper. First was some introductory remarks that both addressed the amendment as well as the minority opinion coming out of committee. The two amendments accomplish two things one reduces the tax rate, the per ounce tax rate, and the other tries to address the just disparate impact on low income people and people of color. These are the same objectives that I was seeking to accomplish in committee but was unsuccessful. The tax, if passed and enacted, will support a lot of great programs like addressing the food security gap with fresh bucks, food banks funding pre-K and Seattle colleges 13th year. I absolutely support those programs. However, this kind of use tax result in the tax burden being greatest on those with lower incomes. There's been dispute whether or not this is technically a regressive tax because people aren't required to buy sweetened beverages. Nevertheless, it remains that people with lower incomes will pay a larger percentage of their incomes on this tax than higher incomes. I'd go further to say that the bill, as it is currently proposed, is actually punitive because it is at a tax rate that is higher than alcohol, cannabis or cigarets. And that's why I proposed in committee the tax to be lowered to $0.01 per ounce. That amendment failed, but my new amendment proposes 1.2 $0.05 per ounce, and I will distribute a chart that will both demonstrate on the front page the total amount raised with this amendment with both parts, and then on the second page will demonstrate that this brings.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 8: Tax more in line with with alcohol. Basically, you can see that on the second part under sweetened beverage in the red, the last line for Coke two liter. This still results in a 32% reduction in use and is more in line with other jurisdictions that have passed a tax like this, the majority of them taxing at a penny an ounce. In addition, this tax, as proposed, has an additional layered, disparate impact on low income people and people of color. The Human Rights Commission today sent us a letter that stated The toolkit analysis made clear that the amended legislation, including diet sodas, addressed inequities inherent in the bill. Despite this, the Council excluded diet sodas from the legislation, creating a loophole that largely exempts wealthier individuals from the tax that more disadvantaged populations will experience. This will have a real impact on those who buy soda, regardless of the ultimate health impacts. And it's unfair to exempt sodas that are consumed by wealthier individuals while targeting those consumed by historically disadvantaged populations. So my second attempt to amend this legislation to address those disparate impacts since my efforts to remove diet of I'm sorry, add diet to the the products being taxed in committee did not secure the necessary number of votes . I'm trying to address the disparate impact on low income people and people of color by adding sugary coffee drinks, a higher cost product that are also more likely to be consumed by people with more disposable income. I drink diet soda. I drink sweetened coffee. I'm trying to actually tax the unhealthy product that I myself consume because I just don't think it's fair to spread to not spread the cost of food security programs and early childhood education programs to consumers like me. This is a primary principle of equity. We spread the cost of programs that some people use to everyone. So there's been some concern about by adding coffee and not including diet. Whether or not that gets to the revenue target that we're seeking to get. And I would propose by adding sugary coffee. If we get to a revenue target above $18 million a year and with about 7.4 million of that coming from sweetened coffees. And you can see on the second page of the handout, we make some calculations based on some studies on the amount of coffee that most consumers drink. We on average drink three cups of three, eight ounce cups of coffee a day per capita. Multiply that times 365 days a year. The National Coffee Association says that about 56% of people actually sweeten their coffee. And I figured I don't have a I don't have a citation for this, I must admit. But I extrapolated about one in five of those 56%. People might use Sirups to sweeten their coffee as opposed to to sugar. The number of adults in Seattle right now is 595,000 adults a year. And at a tax per ounce, it at 1.2 $0.05 per ounce. That results in about 7.4 additional million dollars a year. So I believe that hits the objective of the number of dollars raise. It still reduces the use of these products. It has a reduced impact on low income people and people of color. One thing I have heard a concern about is that this might negatively affect concern about milk in stores, in closed containers. I do have an alternate version of my of my amendment. I did not meet the 12:00 deadline. I literally heard about the concern about milk in stores at 1130 this morning. I'd be happy to distribute that alternative, but council would need to vote to waive the rules to hear it.
Speaker 0: So thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So at this point, we have a live motion on the table. I was a little unclear on your alternatives. So should we just let that. Remain silent for the moment and deal with your base amendment right now. So fine. So we have an amendment to basically reduce it to one point to five, the actual rate and the other subset of components that Customer Herbold described, just to make sure our discussion is live, is there a second? It's like, okay, it's been moved in second. And so would anyone else like to address the amendment proposed by Councilmember Herbold? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, I want to start by just thanking you for you've spent a lot of work trying to kind of thread the needle on this. And I really appreciate that. I'm not going to support the amendment, though. And the reason for me is that what I think is the most punitive of what's happening here is the way the beverage companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi target billions of dollars of advertising to persuade people to consume a product that we all know is unhealthy for communities and the way that they disproportionately target low income communities and communities of color, as Councilmember Burgess outlined in his opening comments. And that is having severe negative impacts on communities. And we know that we've seen around the country how an appropriate tax can help reduce consumption of this product. But we also have heard from community leaders who come from these communities that are being targeted, who are living with the negative health impacts of folks consuming these sugary beverages and have said, look, we are open to this. In fact, we're here embracing this. As long as you ensure that you make the investments back in our community so that our community members have equal access to healthy foods, and that food security gap is closed. And once we open the access for those products, what folks tell us time and time again is our community members will choose healthy products if we have access to them. This bill is a balancing act for sure, but I believe the current legislation at 1.70 $0.05 with the direction of focusing the investments on access to healthy foods and closing the food security gap is a bill that I'm going to support, as is not this amendment I would support , including diet beverage. We try that in committee. I don't believe there's an amendment before us today, but if it came up today, I certainly would support that again. I do not support making exemptions for other products beyond what's already in the bill. And I want to just take a second to thank the community members who've worked so hard, especially those representing communities of color and low income communities, to help us do the best we can to get this right so that we can have those positive outcomes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Brian. So we still have a motion for an A. We have an amendment in a second. Is there any other comment before we vote on the Casper Herbold amendment? Ready for vote? Everybody. Okay, so it's been moved in second to lower the tax rate to 1.2 $0.05 from the base legislation. All those in favor say I and raise your hand. Okay. I'm sorry. I was just so we have to. I said it, but I. I don't know why I said it. I was trying to get some rhythm. I'm not voting for us. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, no. So it fails. It's 66262, two, no less. Eight counts, six or two. Okay, so let's move to the second one. That's just getting too much. Mike Tyson, thank you. So I have a lot of paperwork in front of me, guys. I know. So I have an amendment here and I want to address it. And I'm not naive to think that I have an overwhelming support, but I want to address some comments. So you should have a copy of B4, which is an exemption for handcrafted beverages that during public comment took some criticism that I will describe why I'm supporting it or that fails or not. Will, will, we'll see. But I want to talk I want to address some of the concerns. So just to keep it alive, I move to through Amendment four, which is an exemption to handcrafted beverages. Is there second?
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So you guys are slow on my second. By the way, this notion of let me back up that when this tax when I first started researching this tax, which was quite some time ago, when I looked at what other cities were doing, I was not even a proponent of it. Then for this very same reasons we heard today that it seems to be taxing poorer communities. It's regressive and in it just didn't feel right in my heart. And so I started looking at the. Researcher looked at the tobacco industry and looked at how the tobacco was sort of being taxed and looked at what are referred to as sin taxes and try to get a little better educated on how it can reset community norms and reset behaviors. And then I looked at all of the benefits of what we can do as a city when the state and the federal governments don't seem to be fulfilling their obligations. And then I changed my outlook on this and became a supporter of what I was calling a soda tax. And it was that a soda tax? We called it that. And when I saw the one proposal and it brought up all the bottles of soda, that's what I thought when I met with labor. I then became aware of the impact on jobs, which incredibly. Concern to me. And it was, quite frankly, in my office where we thought about this retraining dollars, the 1.5 just didn't magically appear. It came when we started looking at what we can do with the 13th year in retraining many of these workers, which, quite frankly, in this country, we're going to have to do more and more retraining, some manual jobs for other types of jobs. And this has to be very intentional in our country. So so that's so that became part of the base legislation. When I look at what the city is known for as sort of a coffee capital, to say that this is an elitist exemption is, quite frankly, offensive. And you don't do your constituents a great service by calling it an elitist tax. I think it's an exemption when we look at the 1500 small coffee shops that are affected, the demographics we're trying to target. We have close to 1700 coffee shops, most of them just small moms and pops that I thought this was not the target product or the what we were trying to do to remedy obesity. So it seemed like a smart exemption for where we are trying to head. And so we proposed it. And that was my logic. And that continues to be my logic, to continue to focus on the products we think are causing the most harm and not for it to be as all encompassing as it sort of became. So that's my amendment. Are there any questions or any statements that I don't like to say either for or against the amendment? Councilman Beck. So here, before.
Speaker 3: I really have more of a question at this point, and I'm trying to deal with the logical perhaps inconsistencies here, but you're talking about 15 to 1700 small coffee. They call them a coffeehouse or some independent. But you just brought this forward this morning. How does how do we distinguish these 1500 small businesses from the other small businesses that are offering sodas? If what's happening here is that we're saying we're trying to this is a public health model that we're trying to really bring forward. And if we're saying anybody who is offering, you know, the syrupy plungers that still sugar, it's still going into people's system, how is it that we can say, well, one's okay and one's not?
Speaker 0: You know, fair question. And I do want to clarify a point that Councilman Gonzalez made this morning. I keep using the reference to coffee shops, but it certainly covers many more products than the coffee shops. It covers. It covers bubble tea as an example, which is a popular drink at the Chinatown International District. So there's 1700 coffee shops, of which I said around 1500 or so were just small ones. So I think you're asking the question, how does if I am sympathetic toward the small businesses that are doing hand paws, why would I be sympathetic toward the small grocery store that has the canned sodas in there? That's a good point and one that I would say that probably is a weakness in my position that that when I traveled around the world and I was in Japan just a couple of weeks ago, quite frankly, we are known as the coffee capital. That's part of our core competency. People fly here to taste our coffee, not just Starbucks or Tully's or Seattle's best, but the whole I mean, we created created a hub. And so I have a little partiality, I guess, toward our core competency when I think about coffee shops is probably why I keep inadvertently referring to coffee shops . But I do look at the small businesses and quite candidly we are being as progressive progressives as possible and we very easily I mean, if we are as progressive as we say, we could very easily tax bottled water. Right. We could very easily exempt a small grocery stores on the corner that do a certain amount of revenue and said they are exempted as well. We may end up doing things like that in the near future. So. So. So I don't have a a policy argument as to why small stores aren't exempted from the surtax or their sweetened beverage tax. Any other questions or concerns? Okay. So I'll call for a vote. And I don't see overwhelming enthusiasm, but that never stopped me before. You know that all those in favor of amend amendment be for. Please raise your hand and say i, i, i i. That's 8 to 0. I think all those opposed say no and raise your hand. No. Okay, so that's not passing. We move to Amendment A, which is councilmember, whereas and by catch my words before I do, let me get some forewarning on the order. I should have done that at the beginning. So we're my plan is to go. Councilman Moore as Councilman O'Brien, Councilmember Brian and Councilmember Burgess in that order. So I think you know what the subject amendments are. Sorry I didn't do that at the beginning. Councilmember Whereas the microphone is yours.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President I'm going to briefly make some comments, some of that I will be repeating what I shared with you this morning. But before I begin, I do want to thank Councilmember Herbold for all the work that she did on looking at the reduction. But also I was very impressed that she wanted to make sure that milk based beverages did not get the exemption. I'm inclined some point to revisit that issue someday. So I want to thank you for your work on that. The amendment I have proposed will declare that food banks and meal programs are an acceptable use of funds under the spending plan. As I mentioned this morning, this is a groundbreaking opportunity for the city to create a dedicated funding source specifically to ensure everyone in our communities have enough to eat. For the past several years, local food banks have reported double digit increases in the number of people seeking their services. However, the city has only been making inflationary adjusted investments to most program budgets. This leads to programs continuing to try to serve more people with less resources. I hope today my colleagues will join me in approving this amendment to establish our commitment to basic food access across the city and across our communities as they shared this morning. Everyone in this city should have a right to eat. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess and other council members who work with me on this, that when we went back and looked at the priority in the spending plan, that we did focus on public health, nutrition, food scarcity and access to healthy foods. However, as you can see in my amendment, I wanted to include community based investments to expand food access and to include such as food banks and meal programs that may seem insignificant to some people that it needs to be said, but it does need to be said. The ink does need to be on the paper because I believe and I'm sure our community groups believe as well, that food banks and meal programs are the heart and soul of community based investments. And as I shared this morning, we had an emergency food situation when the food bank closed down in Greenwood and moved to Snohomish County. Therefore, the North Helpline Food Bank had to absorb much more people, even though they should not have accepted some people based on their zip code. They did it anyway because they didn't want to turn people away. We spent two months trying to find $25,000 just to open up that second food bank. With the help of the mayor and the president and some of my other colleagues, we did secure $20,000 from the mayor's office in HST. And we now have the Bitter Lake Food Bank, which is the North Help Line edition. And I say this because this is real time, real life, present day situations where people are going hungry. I know we spend a lot of time talking about nutrition and what sugar does to our diet, but there are communities where people don't eat. They don't have the luxury of saying, I'm going to have a bubble tea, I'm going to have a Diet Coke, I'm going to have a latte. They don't eat. So what we know now from Bitter Lake will serve 188 people per day. That's well over to well over 1200 people and duplicated people. My goal today is to secure a revenue source, a secure funding source for food banks and meal programs. We have never made a financial, economic or tax revenue commitment to food banks or meal programs. And it's time we make a moral commitment that in this city everybody eats. We have an opportunity to dedicate a revenue stream to make sure people, families and those experiencing hunger and the wonderful folks that run and maintain food banks have a opportunity and can rely on a revenue stream and a source that we make a financial commitment to such a basic human right, which is food. As I shared earlier, a lot of our food banks, not just North Help Line. Do more than just provide food. They provide an information. Social services for Medicaid. Medicare. Housing, Eviction Prevention. Rent Assistance. Food Day Packs. Hygiene Packs. North Helpline has a clinic that's open five days a week. We provide baby food, diapers, infant needs, baby formula, orca cards, transportation vouchers. We also provide language assistance. And we work with all of our constituents in the immigrant community. So what I'm saying is, is that people don't just go to food. Banks for food is often a central place, that people go for everything because that's all that's the only place that they can go. And while I respect the process with HST, I just don't think it's fair that food banks have to get in line. Pardon the pun, every year to beg for $38,000 to run to to deliver food to people again. On a personal note, I think the most difficult question we faced as a society is, again, whether or not we have a diet soda, a latte. I think the most difficult question we face next to homelessness is that we simply don't have food for our people, and that's unconscionable. So I'm hoping today that my colleagues will vote and approve my amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember suarez. So I'm going to construe councilmember walls as comments as a motion to amend a which adds food banks to the list of potential expenditures and it has been seconded by Councilmember Rowback. So any other comments before we call for the vote? Thank you again, Councilman. Whereas all those in favor of amended a vote I in raise your hand. I opposed. Okay. So we're one for three. Here we go. Okay. So, Councilmember O'Brien, you are up, sir.
Speaker 4: Great. I'll go ahead and move. Amendment D, which is on the pink sheet. Changing language under subsection B of section three. Is there a second? Thank you. We talked about this at some length at the briefing this morning, but I'll just go over really quickly. The language under subsection B says the remainder of the net proceeds from the beverage tax shall be used to support in order of priority, and that the first priority is where the language will be changed. The new language would read Expanding access to healthy and affordable food, closing the food security gap, and promoting healthy food choices through programs including but not limited to and then a list, a series of six programs. As we discussed before, there was language about public health in that opening line. It's still public health. Nutrition programs are still listed as one of the programs that can be could be funded. And also those public awareness campaigns, capital investments to help promote healthy choices. The impetus behind the change in this language, some argue it's just a wordsmithing that was to really center that top priority of focusing on expanding access to healthy, affordable food and closing that food security gap. It also says including but not limited to. So this is not intended to bind anything for matter to just prioritize to the committee that will be making recommendations that this is a top priority for us.
Speaker 0: Thank you comes from Brian you've made a motion and it has been second and any further comments all those in favor of amendment D vote I in raise your hand I oppose the ayes have it. Councilman Brand, I would like to go through it for Amendment F.
Speaker 4: Yes. So Amendment F speaks to the community advisory boards role in evaluations. I will go ahead and move that to the second floor.
Speaker 0: Moved in second.
Speaker 4: If this is a little more technical in nature, we have a whole section on evaluations, as we do with lots of innovative legislation like this, which I fully support. This simply adds a sense within that paragraph about evaluations that says the evaluator will collaborate with a sweetened Beverage Tax Community Advisory Board to develop the evaluation, hopefully self explanatory beyond that.
Speaker 0: Very good. And thanks for talking about that this morning during briefing, are there any further comments? Just council member back? Sure.
Speaker 3: I'm certainly going to support this. I want to ask whether we can specifically ask for diet drinks to be looked at a year from now, as well as this handcrafted beverage that we discussed earlier and doesn't have to be in the legislation. But I would just like to get the sense that if we're going to have this evaluation, that we include these other options as we are seeing how this tax works or doesn't work for people in our city.
Speaker 4: My amendment doesn't address that. I personally would certainly support that, although I don't think it's timely at this point to put anything in here. I don't believe that any language in the bill around evaluations prohibits us from having conversations about doing that and including that. And so my suggestion would be to work with you offline as we move forward and to see if there's support to do that.
Speaker 0: Thank very much all those. So we have a motion a second all those in favor of amended F say I and raise your hand. I oppose I have it so amended amendment F is approved. Amended I Councilmember Burgess, thank you.
Speaker 4: This is an amendment to section 5.53.030. This is the section of the ordinance that imposes the rate and this is amending sub paragraph two by adding the language where a product is produced from more than one concentrate. The rate on each component shall be calculated proportionately so that the combined tax on the total yields the 1.75 per fluid ounce charge on the resulting beverage. This is a technical clarification, mostly to guide the rulemaking authority. As the rules are developed for the concentrates service, I would move. Amendment one excuse me amendment I.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Any further discussion on the amendment proposed by comes from Burgess. All those in favor of amended amendment. I raise your hand and say I. I opposed. The ayes have it for amendment. I that, I believe concludes all of our amendments. So in a moment here, we're going to close some debate. I think Councilmember Burgess would like to take his home, as I always say.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. So a couple of thank you, colleagues. Thank you to each and every one of you for engaging, especially in the last month or so on this legislation. As is true with much of the legislation we pass here, it's a balancing act between what's the right thing to do. What's the what's the evidence, what's the Science Show? I know on the diet issue, we had a very healthy discussion at committee, and I think several of us agreed that there's really no right or wrong answer on that issue. We chose to go without the diet this time. I think the most persuasive of that to me was that the scientific evidence is just not there yet, but it may be in the next few years, and that's why I think would be worthwhile for those of you who remain to revisit that topic sometime in the future. But I want to thank a few folks who have played a really key role in advancing this legislation, Dr. Jim Krieger and all of his public health colleagues in the medical profession. Thank you for your strong and unwavering advocacy that Coleman and your advocacy in Washington State for healthy kids. For how many decades now I don't remember but a long time thank you to got green and the other community groups especially people coming out of communities of color and advocating forcefully yet respectfully the whole time on this has frankly been very impressive. So thank you for lending your voice to this effort to Save the Children Action Network. Thank you. You guys are active all over the United States for children. You've been active in Seattle for many years now, and we appreciate that, too, Mayor Murray, for proposing the original legislation and his two staff members who who worked on this the most, Robert Feldstein and David Mendoza. And then finally to Sarah Day on my staff who did all of the work and was really very detailed and would come back from meetings and would plop down in her chair and say, So, Tim, I'm going to argue both sides of this because everybody has great arguments and then we had to sort through all of that. Thank you, Sarah, for your very good work with that. I think we're ready to vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Burgess. Any further comments? Councilmember Herbold. I've tried to get the primary sponsor the last bite at the apple, but you're recognized.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I just wanted to say I'd really hope to get to a place where I could support this bill. I offered amendments to address my concerns about the punitive nature of the tax to make it more in line with other products that we tax, that we want reductions in use, as well as the disparate impact on people of color, jobs and small businesses. I specifically offered amendments that were designed to preserve the goals that I shared with my colleagues, namely the revenue target of 50 million identified by got green, making sure that we only included products with a demonstrated negative health impact by taking out diet and putting in sugary coffee. And three identifying a rate of tax that preserved a 32% impact on reduction of use. I'm really disappointed that my efforts were not successful in convincing my colleagues and consequently, sadly, I'll be voting against the tax despite my strong support for the programs it intends to fund.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. And I'm going to recognize Councilman, whereas we actually do have a minute or two, because after we vote, I'm going to have to move us at ease for a while while central staff prepare some legislation so we have a moment to catch my words. You are recognized.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. First of all, I want to I'm glad to see that the chair and the committee approved adding funds to support workers in any potential displacement of jobs due to the decrease in the consumption of some sugar sweetened products. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for making sure that we talked about an adding the 1.5 million funding for retraining and placement programs for workers adversely impacted by the tax. And a particular. Thank you to the Teamsters. To Lilly Cordova. Lilly got back to me the information that I was concerned about, the number of jobs by classification that could be affected by the decrease in sales. She actually broke that down into drivers warehouse fleet, mechanics, production, merchandizers, merchandizers, etc. and also what particular companies? Columbia distributing Southern wine and spirits. Shasta. Safeway. Pepsi. And Coca Cola. And also I learned and was listening to public comment. And again, I want to thank Lily because she got this information to me quickly that there were people in Philadelphia that did lose jobs between 16th May 2016 and May 2017 when they did pass this. Now. The reason why I'm saying this is because I think that we should rely on facts and the record. In Philadelphia, there was a job loss of about 140 jobs, mainly sales reps, drivers and merchandise positions. And those companies were Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Canada. Dry, I believe. So we met with the labor folks. We met with the Teamster folks, and we met just about with everybody, including the food groups in the food banks, in the community groups. And I'd like to say it's it's nice when everyone can come together and at some point we can agree to disagree, but know that we're doing something for the greater good of our city and our people. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those words, Councilman. Whereas so we're going to call for the vote now, assuming there are no further comments, will you please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill johnson.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Suarez. AI O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Bakeshop. Hi, Burgess.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: It's Gonzales. I Herbold President.
Speaker 0: Harrell I.
Speaker 1: Seven in favor want to post.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 0: Bill passes as amended and share with Senate. Once the bill as amended is ready for signatures, it should be ready for signature in a few moments. So at this time, we're required to do it in open session. So we're going to be it is ready. See, that was well done.
Speaker 4: Wow. People can clap now. All right.
Speaker 0: Yes, we can clap now. Thanks very much. So the bill passed and Cher will sign it in open session. And is there any further business cover for the council? I see a couple of hands, Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 4: First, I move to be excused on June 19.
Speaker 0: Second June, and it's moved and seconded. Council member Burgess be excused for June 19th. All those in favor say I oppose. The ayes have it. Council member Gonzalez I move.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I move to be excused from the full council meeting on Monday, June 12th.
Speaker 0: June 12th it's been moved and segment Councilwoman Gonzales be excused for June 12th. All those in favor say I opposed the ayes have it. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I moved to be excused on June 19th, and I'm not telling you where Council member Burgess and I are going.
Speaker 0: To move in segment. The council member can be excused for June 19th. All those in favor say I oppose. The ayes have it. Any other business to come for the council? I want to say that we stand and your neighbor and have a great rest of the day. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE imposing a tax on engaging in the business of distributing sweetened beverages; adding a new Chapter 5.53 to the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Seattle Municipal Code Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.025.K, 5.30.060.C, 5.55.010, 5.55.040.A, 5.55.060.A, 5.55.150.E, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230.A. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05302017_CB 118963 | Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the report of the full Council agenda.
Speaker 5: Item one The Report of the Full Council Council Bill 118963. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending Section 23.7 6.006 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the land use decision to waive or modify structure, width or setbacks for a youth service center and integrated CPA decisions. Our Type two decisions that may be appealed to the city hearing examiner were referred to full council on May 22nd, 2017.
Speaker 0: Consumer Brian.
Speaker 7: Thank you. We had a good discussion today at the council briefing. Amy was going to walk through some of those points, but I'll try to keep it brief. This ordinance clarifies that the city's hearing examiner does have jurisdiction over hearing appeals on waiving development standards for youth service centers. In October of 2014, the council passed ordinance 124610, which allowed youth service centers to be permitted outright and authorized the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections Director to waive certain development standards such as structure, width and setback requirements. This ability to waive development standards was specified as a Type two decision, which typically means is a discretionary decision for the CDC director that is appealable to the hearing city hearing examiner. The master use permit was issued in December of 2016 and it was then appealed by Epic and other members of the community to the hearing examiner, as was commonly understood to be the appeal venue for Type two decisions. In March, the hearing examiner determined that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because ordinance 124610 did not amend a procedural section of the zoning code to specify that waiver decisions for youth service centers are appealable. There is clear legislative history expressing the intent to make this decision appealable, but there was a legislative drafting error which wasn't caught until the hearing examiners consideration. The ordinance is now a corrective ordinance that amends the procedural chapter of the zoning code that lists appealable decisions. To clarify that, the hearing examiner has jurisdiction over youth service center waivers. The correction in the bill is retroactive to April 2015, which was the effective date of the original ordinance. That retroactivity clause does not compel the hearing examiner to take up the appeal, but it is something that a judge could consider in weighing whether to send this back to the hearing examiner.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Brian. I'm aware that we will talk about a possible amendment in a moment that anyone will probably have some debate, I'm sure, on this issue. But so why don't we just start with the amendment right now, if you want, unless anyone else want to talk about the base legislation. Okay. Councilmember Beck, so you'd like to propose an amendment?
Speaker 2: An amendment I would like to propose. And I support what Councilmember O'Brien is doing with the exceptions of line six through eight and lines 11 and 12. And the impact of this would make the ordinance effective to ensure that courts and other decision makers understand that the Council intended and continues to intend that Youth Service Center decisions are a Type two land use decision, subject to an open record appeal to the hearing examiner. But it will not be retroactive.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Second Amendment has been moved and seconded. Any further debate on the retroactivity issue that councilmember spectrum councilmember? Actually, you won't speak a little bit about it.
Speaker 2: Sure. Sure. I just this is for my colleagues. What's in front of the superior court right now is an appeal from the land use decision to waive or modify the structure with or setbacks. My understanding is that land use decision with regard to moving forward with the map has already vested. So it's limited to waiving or modifying the structure width. But there's a lot of questions about this particular facility, and I would just like to address my colleagues if I could. So years ago, when in my prior life I worked at changing what we know to be the Youth Services Center today, because what all of us know is that it really is a mess. It's not a place where we want children to be. It's not a place where we want, frankly, the judges to have to work. And what we need are spaces in a new building that will connect clients with supportive services. And I want to acknowledge what people were saying in the audience today. We really do need to invest in youth. That is how we're going to get our way out of this and keep our youth out of jail. So what is being proposed to the Community and Family Justice Center to provide more space for confidential meetings, for families, for children, for counselors, for the community? It's really an effort towards big steps, towards prevention. Having library and classrooms and gym. Medical services. Spiritual service. Says Dedicated spaces for prayer, for art, for music, for peacemaking circles, and their space for parents to meet and learn from other parents. Parents for parents providing mentorship and respect for those who struggle.
Speaker 0: It's just been a customer and show. Now there's going to be eight other opinions here. This is just one opinion of eight. So let's just chill for a second. If I could ask you. I know this is I know, but but we but I, I this is being disruptive and we can hear. So I just ask we were patient to this and you said I just asked you to please, please, please, please come from our back.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So we also are going to have an opportunity to provide court appointed advocates to meet with children diversion that is going to be a part of community based alternatives. And I'm very much a proponent of the family intervention and restorative services, the first that's an alternative to detention for youth and domestic violence situation. I also want us to be investing our money in school based restorative mediation sessions where youth can work with mediators to help them understand the impact of their actions and space for mentor artists to use their crafts, to work with youth, to give them skills to connect with others in ways that promote their community. Really, our goal is to reduce youth involvement with the juvenile justice systems, because what we know is that the old ways simply do not work. Everyone up here knows that. So we need to acknowledge the need for upstream investments, upstream investments in education and job skills and apprenticeship programs and the best starts for kids. Our family and education levy or housing levy having more orca cards available for young people in need and saying all that we must recognize that there's still violence in homes, but we are spending money on step up programs and there's abandonment of children. There are within our juvenile drug court charges that are dismissed. We do not want to jail kids for status offenses, which someone has already brought up. We also recognize that their guns are in the hands of children. We need to replace that with our aggression, replacement training, our functional family therapy and more. But investing in youth requires space for intervention, space for community outreach, space for these peacemaking and healing circles. And I want to recognize that the mentorship and life skills and family engagement, it takes time and a different approach. Unfortunately, what we're talking about in our Children and Family Justice Center programs are mental health liaisons, public health, including birth control, interagency school and access for girls for powerful voices and personal power. And as Councilmember Herbold mentioned just a moment ago, some try to divide us, but we must find common ground. And that is really my goal. It's the right to change the system and it needs to be changed. If we assume others who disagree with us are evil or ignorant, we promote the divisiveness and the danger that the person that our White House represents. And that's not what we want to do here in Seattle. With regard to the new Children and Family Justice Center, we need to do all of these progressive programs. And we can if we do nothing, if we do nothing, we continue to have a jail. If we build the building and we reduce the risk factors and bolster our youth strategies, we make improvement. So I want to suggest that we don't that we allow the Superior Court to move forward, but we do not try to change this retroactively and that we move this forward because the people have already voted for it and we do everything we can to invest in our youth.
Speaker 0: So there is a motion on the table to take out to take out that retroactivity clause has been moved in. Second, is there any further comments just on the amendment, on the amendment at this point? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I believe the section two, the retroactivity clause, simply states today that the council's intention of 2015, April 1st, 2015, should be considered. It will be up to the Superior Court judge to make a determination of whether or not this ordinance, as passed today, with or without the progressivity or the retroactivity clause, actually makes the ordinance as relates to this particular project ROA retroactive. So I believe that this. Clause simply makes the ordinance consistent with the intent of the council. Back in April 2015 that this should be a decision that is a Type two decision that is appealable. And for that reason, I will not be supporting the amendment or.
Speaker 0: Any other comments on the amendment, not the base legislation. So I will just close. Customer swap.
Speaker 12: Thank you, President Harrow.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 12: So Councilmember Bagshaw says that she supports restorative justice. She had a lot of nice owning words. I have just very simple questions. If you stand by those words, then why will you not support the strongest possible clarification to enable EPIC and other community activists to appeal the building of the jail? And furthermore, why did you vote for the jail in the first place in 2014? And do you regret that decision?
Speaker 0: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much. I'm going to share a few thoughts about the amendment and also about the the facility that's being constructed. But I want to begin. I know it's tough to listen to people that you disagree with, but I'd like to have that courtesy, please.
Speaker 0: Please, that councilmembers for you begin. Now, we showed you how we listened to Mr. Zimmerman call us every name under the sun and we patiently listen. I just ask that you be patient and we will. And I expect you to be a leader, man. I expect you to be a leader. I understand. But just just as a listening exercise. And so just listen and we'll hear from and I know I'm being very polite, but my politeness is getting thin. And I will start I will start having you removed in about 2 minutes. I'm telling you now. I'm telling you now. I'm going to have you removed. I'm giving you for a warning if you keep talking over the speakers. Okay. I'm going to tell you one more time. I'm going to have you removed. If you don't let our speakers, please proceed.
Speaker 10: Criminal justice reform is urgently needed in our country, and I think we would all agree with that. Even ironically, some of our.
Speaker 7: View on this don't even some of my.
Speaker 10: Republican friends.
Speaker 0: I'm going to ask you to refrain.
Speaker 7: Please, please go back.
Speaker 0: Please let the speakers speak.
Speaker 10: Even some of our Republican friends recognize, as we saw this morning in the Seattle Times opinion piece by John and Mike McKay, both former U.S. attorneys for Western Washington, the McKay brothers wrote of their sharp disagreement with Attorney General Sessions requiring federal prosecutors to seek the harshest and longest mandatory sentences, even in some low level drug cases . In making their argument that Attorney General Sessions is wrong. The case cited King County prosecutor Dan Söderberg and his approach to criminal justice reform. They lauded Prosecutor Söderberg as one of the country's leading reformers, and we know that that's true. He's been a champion of reform, urging police officers across King County to use alternatives to arrest pioneering diversion programs and being very judicious in the filing of criminal charges against juveniles. Our King County Superior Court judges have embraced these reforms wholeheartedly and pioneered some of their own, including adopting restorative justice principles. And what are the results of this reform effort? Here are a few statistics worth noting from the For the ten years ending last year, in 2016, in King County, juvenile court cases referred from police to prosecutors, down 77%. Criminal charges being filed by prosecutors against juveniles. Down 85%. The average number of juveniles held in detention from 200 per day on average to 45 per day on average today, a reduction of over 70%. These reforms and these changes in our approach to juvenile offenders has had a dramatic impact on individual kids and their families as a result of these reforms. King County has the lowest juvenile incarceration rate per capita of any county in the entire United States, the lowest juvenile incarceration rate of any county in the United States. The justice reform efforts that we have underway here in King County are achieving tremendous success, and we should be affirming these dramatic changes and applauding our prosecutors, police judges and court staff. I believe that history will look back and show that King County has led the nation in reforming juvenile justice. The other difficult reality that we have to face here, and this is very hard for us to talk about, is the reality that some juveniles commit very serious crimes murder, rape, robbery , drive by shootings. These individuals, when arrested, deserve to be in a location that is safe, secure and has their long term interest at heart. The second the second point I want to make is that this issue for me involves due process. We passed this ordinance in 2014. The executive then acted and issued a master use permit consistent with the ordinance. An outside party, King County, received that permit and continued their work on the project. The county's contractor has begun site preparation. Architectural designs are being finalized. Reversing ourselves and applying a different standard. Retroactively. Retroactively. In my view, violates the certainty and fundamental fairness third parties should accept from city government. And I will support this amendment.
Speaker 0: Any other comments on the amendment itself? It's not a closed debate. Simply by saying, I'm not supporting the amendment for the very simple reason that the reason I'm supporting the base legislation is because I expect it to apply retroactively. I mean, that's the whole point of this, in my mind, is to make sure it does apply retroactively. I'll speak more to the base legislation itself, but I don't see a basis at this point in policy or fact for supporting the amendment that has been moved in second. And I think that we are ready to vote on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, vote I and raise your hand. All those opposed. Say no and raise your hand. Okay. So the amendment fails. Council member Brian. Uh, we still have the base legislation on the table. Councilman Bryan, did you want to defer to other speakers at this point, or would you like to say a few more words? Okay. Any of my colleagues, like say any comments on the base legislation. And, you know, when I close, I closed it now. So, so so, you know, this is thank you for allowing us to get through this decision. In my mind in 2014. This particular decision is an easy one because when I supported the 2014, I assumed it was appealable to the hearing. Examiner It's as simple as that it was. That was my assumption. Now, whether the technical technical language was in that decision or not or should have been, I didn't read that footnote. I just assumed that it was. And so in my mind very simply that this legislation cleans that up. But probably more importantly and more substantively is what we knew in 2014 and even what we knew as a society in 2012 when the voters decided to rehabilitate this building. What we know about mass incarceration of all human beings in this country and in particular people of color, and we look back and trace it to the war on drugs. We know that our country and this city are in dire straits with what we are doing to our people. We are putting them in prison. And this has become a science and so much data has now come out on what we are doing and we are killing our country, killing our people. So I continue to say transparently and openly that my mind is wide open in terms of what a creative solution would be. And I will take ownership of the fact that between the city and the county, perhaps we have not had the kind of dialog that we could have had. So in my mind, I have no problem openly saying that we need to come up with the most creative solutions possible. This does not denigrate or diminish some of the outstanding work that the county's trying to do. We hear you. We hear you in the in the statistics that Councilmember Burgess cited. We hear those statistics. But in this country, we know we are at war with this evil called mass incarceration. So can we do more? And I think that's what the community communities are asking us. And so I have an ask for the community because very recently I've had many discussions with folks from the county and I've been trying to make sure that we're just not fighting, that we are we are still trying to come up with solutions and that the city you have a very willing, I think, council and executive that are willing to continue to come up with creative solutions in the midst of this legal entanglement. And so I had meetings canceled from some of the opponents to use jail, and I'm trying to make sure that we are still bridging that communication. So I support this legislation, I think Council Member O'Brien and others for bringing it. And I think we're ready for a vote so we don't have an amendment. So we'll do it by roll call. So please call the roll on the. I said I just asked if anyone wanted to speak and everyone said no. And I said I was closing.
Speaker 7: A.
Speaker 1: Present and.
Speaker 12: I wasn't listening.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Stewart But I made it crystal clear because I didn't want to open it back up. But certainly as the champion you are, you have a right to speak.
Speaker 12: I think this is an important issue and as an elected official, it is important to speak.
Speaker 0: That's why I asked three times if people were finished before I tried to close debate.
Speaker 7: Go ahead.
Speaker 12: Well, I've already apologized. I know the songs suck. What we're voting on today is an ordinance that will clarify the appeal ability language, but we're not voting on the entire ordinance. I thank everybody who has been part of this yearslong movement against the U.S. jail. We've already seen nationwide the Black Lives Matter movement completely changed the conversation around race and around social, economic and gender justice. Locally. Our movement has successfully fought back against a planned police bunker in the north precinct, a project, by the way, that was supported by a majority of this council. I, of course, as many of you know, voted against the original ordinance authorizing the use jail. So I cannot claim to be an expert on what other council members were thinking when they voted yes. But I am happy to support this amendment to clarify that the Council intended the permits to be appealable to facilitate the movement that we are building. And that is why I will be voting yes on this ordinance. But I want to be clear that I am only voting yes because we are clarifying the language to make it appealable. If we were voting on the ordinance for the UGL again, I would still be voting no because I'm opposed to the UGL . And I also wanted to say that. We've seen today and we've seen every single day that in the context of capitalism, politics, the way politics works is absolutely not neutral. It's a question of who has power. Unless we build strong movements among working people and young people and people of color, big business, the super wealthy will continue to have power. And so because politics is not neutral, what the council wants to spend money on is also not neutral. They've already heard the numbers. The county wants to spend $210 million for a huge jail. The proposed police bungle that our movement successfully put a stop to was going to spend $160 million. And at that time, if you recall, council members were trying to push that through without the infamous Seattle process. And then furthermore, the mayor's office has conducted 601. Sweeps of homeless people in last year alone. I have repeatedly asked how much did this cost? How much of the taxpayer money was spent on the sweeps? They haven't been forthcoming on the answer. But I can tell you something about what it must have cost. It has caused endless hours of staff, hours of the public utilities department, the Department of Transportation, the police department. These are countless hours of workers in the city would be doing something socially beneficial and something that is humane. But instead, they sent day after day to sweep homeless encampments, which is what, inhumane and ineffective. And so this is not a question of a lack of options. It is a question of the majority of the politicians and city hall being skewed towards big business and towards the status quo that is stacked up so heavily against people of color and poor and working class people. As far as King County is concerned, we just heard King County claim that they are losing nearly half a million dollars a month because of the delay. What is the basis of this number? I mean, I haven't seen any proof for why they are losing half a million dollars. I think if you want that point to be made, you should provide evidence of why you're losing that money. And King County is joined by Howard as right. The third, who, let's remember, is the same company that has for years violated the rights of the workers in the Space Needle who are represented by Unite represented by Unite here Local eight. And I want to make note about the amendment that Councilmember Bagshaw just tried to pass with Councilmember Burgess's support. They went out of their way to push an amendment, which, in my view, was gratuitous, to make it more difficult for the no new usual activists to organize against incarcerating young people. I hope community activists are watching which council members are on the side of the movement and which aren't. Councilmember Burgess referred to, quote unquote, our Republican friends. Councilmember Burgess I do not have any Republican politicians as friends, and in reality, many Democratic politicians like yourself have been complicit in mass incarceration from Reagan's so-called war on drugs to Clinton's three strikes law. The school to prison pipeline has been a bipartisan project. I think it is absolutely correct that our movement is not accepting any compromise on this issue. Already, public testimony mentioned the deportations of undocumented youth. Also, remember, Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has just said that he wants U.S. federal courts to pursue the harshest possible sentences on drug crimes. We know what that means. What that means. It means a reboot on the war on drugs. And it will be a war, as it was before, on black and brown people. So we need to make sure that any victory we win in Seattle, remember, we push for it so that we are and we remember that it will reverberate nationwide and worldwide. And that is why it is important for us to continue to push for this movement against the U.S. and for us to win. And I would also urge all the activists to join us tomorrow at the first council discussion to tax Seattle's rich tomorrow at 8 a.m. here in council chambers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold, i.
Speaker 7: Johnson, I. O'Brien, I.
Speaker 1: Swan, I beg to know. No.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Burgess. Burgess.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 1: President Harrow. I have been favored to opposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed and sure was. Sign it. Please read the report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Section 23.76.006 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify that a land use decision to waive or modify structure width or setbacks for a youth service center, and integrated SEPA decisions, are Type II decisions that may be appealed to the City Hearing Examiner. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05302017_CB 118976 | Speaker 5: The Report of the Park Seattle Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee. Agenda Item 14 Council Bill 118976. An ordinance relating to the Seattle Center Department authorizing the Seattle Center director to execute a facility use agreement with Force Ten Hoops LLC for use and occupancy of key arena and adjacent areas at the Seattle Center. The committee recommends a council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bagshaw, please talk about the red hot storm.
Speaker 2: Really? And congratulations to the storm. And as we pointed out at our meeting in the Parks Department, they really are the basketball team in our city who have two world championships. So with that, we have a new lease agreement renewing an expiring lease between the city and the Seattle Storm Force Hoops LLC for use of the key arena at Seattle Center. The current lease agreement expires at the end of 2018. The new agreement would be effective as soon as it is ratified, superseding the last year of the current agreement and will be in effect through 2028. The new agreement tracks with the previous agreement, while also adjusting payments for inflation. The new agreement also provides clear guidelines on the relocation processes and commitments in the event the key arena is not available for the storm to play their games. This relocation will be necessary every fourth year when the Women's World Championship Games overlap with bumper shoot. It may also be necessary for the storm to relocate for the last two seasons if there is a redevelopment effort on the key arena site. The committee voted to recommend the full council approved the lease agreement at the May 19th committee meeting. I'm sorry that Councilmember Suarez isn't here. She's a huge Storm fan. And also I want to express my thanks to Mercedes from her office for assisting us. And I want to say thank you to our storm supporters and owners here that are in the audience today.
Speaker 0: Thank you for filling in counts for our backs. Are there any further questions on this bill? If not, please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Herbold i Johnson. O'BRIEN So aren't I?
Speaker 7: BURGESS Hi.
Speaker 1: President. Herrell All right. Seven in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and Cheryl signed it. That concludes our agenda. Is there any further business coming for the council? If not, we stand adjourned and everyone have a great rest of the day.
Speaker 7: Thank you for listening. Including. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Center Department; authorizing the Seattle Center Director to execute a facility use agreement with Force 10 Hoops, LLC, for use and occupancy of KeyArena and adjacent areas at the Seattle Center; making findings of fact about the value provided by professional women’s basketball in Seattle; exempting the agreement from the requirements of Chapter 20.47 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and superseding an earlier agreement authorized by Ordinance 122907. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05222017_CB 118969 | Speaker 3: The Report of the Gender Equity Safe Communities and New Americans Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118969 An Ordinance relating to civilian and community oversight of the police. Adding a new Chapter 3.29 to the Seattle Municipal Code record of filing sub chapters seven, eight and nine of Chapter 3.28 of the Seattle Missile Code as sub chapters one , two and three of Chapter 3.29. Amending or repealing sections and chapters 3.28, 4.08 and 14.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code. And concerning ordinance 118842. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So this is the reason we're all here today primarily. So I'm very excited about the introduction of this bill and our full council action on this. Just before we get started, I wanted to just for the benefit of the public, walk through what we're about to endeavor upon, because it's going to get a little procedurally wonky, really, really fast. So we have about six amendments that we need to go through that have come up since my last committee hearing. I have three of those amendments. Councilmember Burgess has one of those amendments. Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Johnson are advancing separate amendments as well for a total of six. So we'll walk through all of the amendments first, have a discussion if one is needed, and then we will move for the passage of those amendments before we move for the passage of the full bill as amended. So I'm using the word amended a lot because there's going to be a lot of amendments. And in large part it's because we continued our conversations with the Community Police Commission and have found some additional areas that needed some work, including in many of the areas that you all were here to testify about today. So the first should be go through the amendments first. Councilmember Burgess Okay. So the First Amendment will be my amendment, which is amendment number one. So I will move to amend Council Bill 118969 with Amendment 1/2.
Speaker 0: Okay, Members, you should all have the stack of amendments at your place.
Speaker 3: So Amendment one makes technical corrections and removes some unnecessary language. Included in this amendment is a change to CBCs representative at the annual Joint Status Report with the Inspector General. With that change, the CPC co-chairs will participate in the status report rather than the CPC Executive Director, although there's nothing to preclude the CPC Executive Director from also participating in the annual Joint Status Report, and I understand that Councilmember Burgess might have a slight amendment to my amendment.
Speaker 0: Yes, I do so in this legislation in section. 3.20 9.5 ten, which begins on page nine of Amendment number one. I will draw your attention to the next page, page ten, the paragraph, the first full paragraph at the top of the page, beginning on line three. And I make the following amendment to clarify some of the questions and concerns that we've heard from Labor representatives about the intent of the Council to make certain that it's clear that we recognize our obligations under state statute to engage in good faith, collective bargaining and our intent to do so. So my amendment strikes the parenthetical language that appears on lines four and five. That language reads, including those related to bargaining, the effects of the ordinance on wages, hours, and working conditions of representative police officers. If this amendment passes, the paragraph would then read. For these reasons, the city shall take whatever steps are necessary to fulfill all legal prerequisites within 30 days of mayoral signature of this ordinance, or as soon as practicable thereafter, including negotiating with its police unions to update all effective collective bargaining agreements so that the agreements each conform to and are fully consistent with the provisions and obligations of this ordinance in a manner that allows for the earliest possible implementation to fulfill the purposes of this Chapter 3.29. I move that amendment second. Are there any questions? All in favor of the amendment. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just. I'm just finding the pages here. So. So the between the dashes is you just eliminating those two parts? Well, you said parenthetical between the correct.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. On lines four and five. Any other questions? All in favor of the amendment. Vote I. I opposed vote no. That amendment to the amendment is adopted. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: I don't have anything else to add in terms of the corrections represented in this particular amendment as amended. There's a lot of technical changes in here, including getting rid of abbreviations that are. Referencing nothing. And the only substantive change here is your suggestion in terms of the striking of the language and making the change in terms of the report from the Executive Director to the CPC co-chairs. So if no one has any questions, I'm ready for you to call this to vote.
Speaker 0: Are there any questions or comments about.
Speaker 3: The amendment.
Speaker 0: On amendment number one as amended?
Speaker 9: Just just a point of order. Yes, Mr. Chair, if I'm not mistaken, we need to actually move the bill before we start adopting amendments. And I don't believe we've done that yet.
Speaker 0: Well, we don't, because the bill came with a do pass consideration. So it's in front of us. Yes.
Speaker 9: Appreciate that. Thank you. You're welcome. Didn't want I want to make sure that we weren't doing something funny.
Speaker 3: I don't even know what the words Council President Burgess used mean, but it seems beneficial to me.
Speaker 0: It sounded official.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 0: All right. So we have in front of us amendment number one as amended on favor, vote I, II, oppose vote no. The amendment amendment is unanimously adopted. And I would by comment here alert the city clerk's and Amy that this changes the base legislation for signature. So we'll have to make that correction, hopefully, before we're finished with this work. Amendment number two, which you should all have, relates to the disciplinary process, investigations and appeals for police employees. And it clarifies some of those provisions and makes technical corrections. It adds a requirement that complaints about disciplinary appeals and grievances include the notice to the complainant of any outcomes that result in modification of final findings and disciplinary determinations. When an employee files A or fails to file a timely referral to OPA, it requires that OPA investigate that matter. It specifies that police department tracking of disciplinary determinations must allow the public to access the fairness and consistency of that work, primarily through the OIG and the CPC. It specifies deadlines for the appeal process and it changes the current three year limit of the statute of limitations, in essence, to five years except for criminal behavior. Type three Use of force dishonesty or Concealed Misconduct. It adds language about the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and the three commissioners appointed there, and the process that the Public Safety Civil Service Commission will follow in reviewing appeals of discipline. So I move amendment number two.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Are there any questions? All those in favor of amendment number two, vote. I oppose vote no. Amendment number two is unanimously adopted. Amendment number three. Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Amendment number three relates to the budget for the Office of Police Accountability, the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and the Community Police Commission. We've heard a lot about the budget. Today during public testimony, we've also had a lot of conversations with the Community Police Commission about the process of engaging in our ordinary budget making decisions. And so what I heard from community, both in emails, in public testimony and out of my ongoing conversations with the Community Police Commission is a strong desire to have this City Council strongly signal to community that we are aware of the need to to fully fund all of these or sufficiently fund these entities and to make sure that we take into consideration in the course of making those budget decisions the expanded scope of work that many of the entities will now have under this omnibus police reform package. So what we have done is accepted language that was submitted to us by the Community Police Commission to signal and make that commitment accordingly. And so the language that will be inserted into the base ordinance if approved by this body is reads as follows The city shall provide staff and resources that it deems sufficient to enable OPA, OIG and the CPC to perform all of its responsibilities specified in this Chapter 329. And so that's the language that's before us. And I just want to make very clear to community that what we have done here, instead of making the decisions about the budget for 2018 and a 2000 in 2017, we are going to have a conversation about the sufficiency of financing all of three offices in the context of our full budget, which will kick off in the middle of September. I'm sure we will see many of you there advocating consistent with what we're what you all are advocating for today. I encourage you to do that. I think it's going to be an important part of moving this this bill into implementation. And and and I hope that you all will return and help me understand and help my colleagues understand what the right staffing levels and right resource commitments will be for all three entities. But I assure you that this language for us is a commitment to take the budget conversations very, very seriously, because we recognize how important this body of work is to our community and to the city as a whole. As a whole. And I don't know if our budget chair would like to add.
Speaker 0: Or are you moving this amendment?
Speaker 3: I am going to move Amendment three to Council Bill 118969 and.
Speaker 0: I'll second the amendment. I know the next piece of legislation that will take up here in a few minutes is a modification to the budget to fund the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety. We're taking that action out of the normal sequence. We would follow on the budget because we are in fact creating a new city office. And so we have to do that outside of the normal budget process in order to hire the inspector general on the staff that is there. But Councilmember Gonzalez's is right. Our commitment when we get into the fall and we prepare the budget for 2018 is to make sure that all three of these entities are funded at the level they need in order to do their work effectively and and efficiently. Are there any other comments or questions about this amendment? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just wanted to add one of.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 1: Parts of.
Speaker 3: Legislation that people don't often look at, the CBC and community members did look at this time around, and that's the fiscal note. And with thanks to amici as well as the Budget Office, there's been some additional language added in the fiscal notes for both this legislation and the inspector general legislation to signal the council's seriousness on addressing the budget needs.
Speaker 1: Associated with this body of work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Also, I will also be supporting this amendment. I want to just echo what others have said and what we heard today from a lot of the community members that came out to testify. Obviously, the success of this reform package going forward, they're going forward is going to be partially dependent upon us making sure that we provide the resources to do the work that so many people have come together to make happen. And I look forward to working with all of you in just a few months when we get into our budget process to ensure that we fund the robust resources needed to make sure that the Community Police Commission and the other components are able to achieve the high level of accountability that that you all have demanded.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of adopting amendment number three, vote i. I opposed Amendment three as unanimously adopted amendment number four. Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Speaker 3: Amendment four to Council Bill 11 8969. Second, thank you. This amendment ensures that the CPC retains the authority in the Seattle Municipal Code granted to the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board. The previous review board has existing ability in city law to review closed case files of EPA complaints. The paper emphasized the critical importance in maintaining this authority back in 2014. Review of these files by O Palm in the past has led to the discovery, for example, that SPD was doing criminal background checks on people who had made complaints and led to that being changed. Just as a little bit of history to the authority of the Civilian Review Board, whether or not we're talking about a part of our C.P.S. to have access to unredacted closed complaint files back between 22 and 25, only redacted files were allowed to be reviewed by by OPR. And that was a very difficult situation for OPR to manage, because when having much of the important information, such as names and details of cases blacked out on complaint files, it was difficult to identify trends and patterns, which was the purpose of reviewing these files in March of 2016. Spark was informed that an ordinance was being proposed by the City Council to change the redacted file and confidentiality rules. And in 2026, the City Council amended the musical code to provide a with that access to these closed complaint files with the duty that they maintain confidentiality. It became effective in 2007, but in September of 26, the Guild requested mediation and the first meeting was held in November of that year during 2007, and at the time of the matter, mediation continued. There was no successor agreement. But then in. Later on, in 2007, the unredacted file policy was implemented and in 2008, the public hearing examiner ruled that the city committed an unfair labor practice. Later in 2009, the perk for those of those of you watching don't know what PERC is. That's the Public Employee Relations Commission dismissed the complaint and overturned the ruling and decided that the right of the Council to grant access to these files.
Speaker 1: To OPR.
Speaker 3: Was a management prerogative and did not impact any term or condition of employment that would require the employer to engage in either decision or effects bargaining with the union. I give this history just because this is an effort that the council, together with the mayor, fought to retain this transparency in order to help the civilian review board at that time have an important oversight function, which is the ability to review these closed files without them being redacted in order to identify trends and practices that might need further changes in further reform efforts made to the OPA review process. And this is an important function for the new C.P.S. to retain.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Those in favor of amendment number four, vote I. I opposed vote no. Amendment number four as unanimously adopted. Amendment number five. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Thanks. I'd like to move Amendment five to Council Bill 118969.
Speaker 3: Second. We're sorry.
Speaker 9: Thanks for that. Love to get a chance to talk for a quick minute about this. A moment in early conversations that I had with the CBC. One of the things that came up was about legal representation and brought forward this amendment to protect civilian oversight entities, to allow them to have representation in the event that there's a conflict of interest, a lack of technical expertize or capacity reasons that the city attorney's office would decline to represent them. So this amendment effectively allows the CBC to not only seek that outside counsel, but also ask the city attorney to inform them when they've declined representation about the reasoning. Why? I'm happy to answer questions and hope to count on your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of amendment number five. Vote I oppose Vote No. Amendment five as unanimously adopted. Amendment number six. Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 3: Okay. We're almost there. Amendment number six is related to the OIG work plan. So we I have made an amendment to the amendment that we made in my committee hearing last week. I have heard very clearly from the Community Police Commission their desire to have more than the ability to make recommendations, but to really figure out how it is. We can incorporate those recommendations into the AG's annual work plan to instill in and encourage a level of accountability as it relates to the Inspector General's annual work plan. So what I have done is I have drafted some language in consultation with the Community Police Commission that would require the Inspector General's annual work plan to identify all work plan recommendations from the Office of Police Accountability and the Community Police Commission within his or her annual work plan. Once those recommendations make their way into the work plan, then the IG will have an obligation to also identify which of those recommendations were accepted, which were declined, and if for any reason recommendations were declined , the IG would have to provide a reason as to why that recommendation was declined. I think the strikes a good balance in terms of providing transparency to what the Inspector General's annual work plan will be focused on, while also giving the CPC and OPA an opportunity to have know clear, clear ability to be able to to add to the Inspector General's work plan while still retaining the Inspector General's authority and power to accept what falls into his or her predetermined sense of prioritization and decline others, while still also giving the public and the council a clear explanation as to why certain things won't be pursued. So I think this this is a recommendation that maintains the integrity of the independence of the IG from undue influence from OPA or CPC or other external forces, while also recognizing that we need to have very deliberate collaboration among all of these entities, including in the area of the workplan. So I want to thank all of my colleagues who helped me think through this one. And I especially want to thank the Community Police Commission for, for, for being receptive to what I hope you agree where reasonable concerns and I think we found a very solid solution to be able to move forward in a way that really does signal to community that we're serious about allowing the Community Police Commission to to utilize the IG in a way that will benefit systemic review and ongoing work in that regard. So I will move for I will move to amend Council Bill 118969 with Amendment six, as I've just described it second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Yes. Councilmember Gonzales, I want to thank you for your work on this. This is a discussion item in committee at length. And I really appreciate the expertize you brought to this to craft something that certainly addressed my concerns in a way that was very creative. So thank you for your commitment on that.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All in favor of Amendment six. Vote I. I opposed Vote No. Amendment six is unanimously adopted. We now have the amended legislation in front of us, and this is an opportunity for questions or comments from other council members. And then Councilmember Gonzales will close our discussion. Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Before we begin today, I want to thank everybody who came here to provide public comment. It is very important legislation, as you know, the city has been dealing with for years. I want to thank my fellow council members who co-sponsored this ordinance with me, as well as a special thank you to our committee chair, Councilmember Lorena Gonzalez, whom for her leadership and her vision and working with her and certainly Councilmember Burgess. As we all know, this critical step towards meaningful police oversight has been long in coming. The work on this has been exceptionally deliberative, thoughtful and hard fought. It is the product of hours and hours of staff work by the mayor's office, council staff, and hours of comment and consideration by the dedicated members of the Community Police Commission. I would like to take a step back for a moment from the details of this very complicated piece of legislation. Long enough to acknowledge while we were here. I would like to acknowledge my friend John T Williams, who died in a crosswalk after being shot by a Seattle police officer. I'd like to recognize the Native American people in our community here today who remember that day. We are here because we need to address this tragedy and others like it that have occurred on our streets. We need to prevent them from re-occurring to ensure public safety, due process and professional policing. We need a system that will provide review and accountability. We also need a system that will garner public trust. One part of building public trust is ensuring that this oversight and review process includes the complete Seattle community and the engagement of all corners of our city. Democracy demands that we ensure a wide and diverse representation of Seattle. Communities throughout our city should not be turned away from the table, but rather be included regardless of where they live, whether it be Aurora, Lake City, Rainier or Delaware Avenue. That's why I spoke out for geographical representation on the Committee on the Community Police Commission. In summary, I am pleased to support a democratic, inclusive and professional oversight of our police services to ensure that our police are accountable to high public standards. And that is why I'll be voting yesterday. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I, too, would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to Council Chair Lauren Gonzales, her staff, Brianna Thomas, council central staff Amy Sy City Attorney Andrew Milberg has done exemplary work. My own staff nor Aldrich and really many, many warm thanks to the community groups that wrote to the DOJ in the first place, several of whom are represented here today. Please. Accountability is a living, breathing organism, if you will. I, in my time as an aide to Councilmember Lakota for from 1999 on, I would tell people who would call the office with complaints about police accountability to use the system. People who are.
Speaker 1: Skeptics, you have to use.
Speaker 3: It. If you don't use it, we won't know how to fix it. And this is an example of using what you all have helped us learn to make improvements to the system. But the ability.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 3: This to be successful long term, the success of police accountability reform continues to depend on all of us. A couple of items that came up in.
Speaker 1: A public.
Speaker 3: Comment that I addressed this morning and there's a handout up front about them are related.
Speaker 1: They they are.
Speaker 3: Two separate items, but they both relate to collective bargaining. One relates specifically to the accountability that the public is interested in having over the folks.
Speaker 1: Who do the.
Speaker 3: Bargaining representing the interests of the public as it relates specifically to police accountability. Currently, we have a system where prior to the beginning of bargaining and this only exists for for police bargaining. We have a public hearing that is co-hosted by the Council's Labor Relations and Policy Committee and the Public Safety Committee, as well as in the past.
Speaker 1: It was co-hosted by Obama.
Speaker 3: This public hearing was held specifically to solicit comments from the public around changes that are necessary prior to going into bargaining.
Speaker 1: To the.
Speaker 3: Police accountability system. It's been a practice that after this public hearing occurs that there's a a resolution that the council passes, sort of recognizing the themes and the issues that the public has identified. The. I think an important step forward in having more transparency prior to going into negotiation, while also protecting the important leverage that.
Speaker 1: Labor.
Speaker 3: Rightfully has in negotiations by negotiating and in confidentiality would would be a new requirement that after the hearing and prior to the commencement of negotiations in the Council's resolution, that they also make public the city's goals in bargaining with the police labor organizations. So that's one element that I'd be interested in, in bringing forward in a future, future ordinance. The second element, as I said, is also related to to collective bargaining, but it specifically relates to the issue of the technical accountability advisers and making sure that the CPC and the OPA director and the Inspector General have individuals who can act as technical accountability advisors during the bargaining process, while also having a strong expectation that they observe the legal requirements.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 3: For confidentiality during the the the the time of those bargaining efforts. And so as it relates to the first part of of this this proposal, I understand that many from there's there have been conversations with labor, and labor is supportive of of this element. The second part of this proposal, I think, needs some additional conversations with our with our labor stakeholders. I didn't bring forward the first part of this proposal, even though I felt like there was some good, strong support, both publicly and internally for moving in this direction because it requires a a new A, it would have required a new title change because it amended a part of the code that we weren't currently amending. So I just wanted to share that with the public because there was a lot of test public testimony about both those issues. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Just briefly want to say thanks to a couple of folks. You know, I didn't walk into this job with a subject area expertize on this topic, and it resulted in me spending a lot of time with some folks that I want to say thank you for spending time with me to help me understand better about the decisions that we're making today. So to Diane Ozaki, to Faye Lopez, to Enrique Gonzales, to Allison Eisinger, to Betsy Graff, and to list Dugard. Thank you for spending so much time and energy educating me on this topic, and thank you for all your really incredible organizing and coalition building around this topic as well. I know how hard it is to do community organizing and coalition building and how hard is to keep that together so that we're here today with a consensus package of amendments and consensus underlying legislation. You deserve a whole lot of credit for two city staff, both Andrew Meyer, Berg, Spencer Williams, particularly Brianna Thomas and amici for spending a lot of time with me as well to help take concepts and turn them into actual words on a piece of paper. That was really great and thank you for all your time and energy. And finally, to my colleague, Councilmember McDaniel. You are the subject matter experts in a whole lot of ways on this topic, not just personally and professionally, but I just want to say thank you for your patience, for your leadership. And the city is a whole lot safer today as a result of all your great work.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 6: Oh, good. Thanks. Since so many people have already been recognized, I want to hear to and really appreciate Lisa Dugard and Reverend Harriet Walden. Thank you so much for your mid-night emails. I mean, rarely, rarely have I seen the kind of advocacy but advocacy looking for solutions. And I personally want to say thank you to that. My council colleagues, of course, Lorena Gonzalez, you have been recognized, Councilmember Herbold as well. Johnson and Councilmember, our current president, pro tem, Councilmember Burgess. I just am thankful to all of you because what I have seen in this process and seriously in the eight years that I've been on council, I don't think I've seen another piece of legislation where people have worked as hard with the community, respectfully listening to each other and that deep listening. And I also want to recognize today the fact that the police came and our firefighters came and Levinson, you're back there. Thank you for the work that you have done over the years. And I just appreciate that there really is unity around this and that when we do get together and we do listen to each other, we can come up with this kind of solution. And I think the answer is yes, we try this, we really all can get along. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember So on.
Speaker 10: Thank you, President Burgess. My comments right now will also apply to Agenda Item eight, which is about the Observer's Bill of Rights. And I thank two memorable for bringing that forward. I would like to thank the Community Police Commission. For their dedication to police accountability and the dozens, if not hundreds of hours they have put into amending this legislation. When the mayor's office first sent the draft legislative legislation to council, I heard the commissioners and community advocates expressed concern that if it was passed without amendment, it would have been a step backward, not forward, and a net loss of accountability. Since then, however, the Community Police Commission has worked and organized to amend many of those original problems, and it is due to their determination that we have this legislation today a step in the good direction. And I also thank Councilmember Gonzalez for listening to the concerns of the commission. I intend to vote yes on this bill as community activists and organizations like the NAACP welcome this progress. They are correctly urging the council to follow through on the words and this legislation. They are also correctly urging that this legislation be viewed in proportionate light with a sense of gravity and avoid setting up false expectations. For example, the position of the inspector general is described as independent. But independent from whom? According to this bill, the inspector general is independent from the Seattle police chain of command. Yes, but is not independent from the power structure of the Seattle political establishment. If we have some future mayor running for reelection who does not want a police scandal on their record. The question is how independent will the inspector general be in that situation? The reality is in a society with massive wealth and racial inequality, such as the current one, institutions are not independent or neutral. Regardless of claims otherwise, everyone has a social base, different classes and different political forces that they depend upon or are allied with. I do not try to hide the fact that I represent regular working, working class people and those at the receiving end of police violence. I do not pretend to represent big business. I have always advocated that for genuine police accountability. It will not be enough to have someone who claims to be independent. We will need a democratically elected and accountable community oversight that is unapologetically on the side of working people and oppressed communities, and which will doggedly fight for the rights of victims because they are elected by and accountable to communities not appointed by the political establishment . We need to have a separate democratically elected civilian review board, a body that has full powers to hold the police accountable and that can itself be held accountable if it fails to defend our community members impacted by discrimination and excessive force. This legislation takes a step towards that goal, but in truth, a small step. The closest that we have in this legislation to an independent review board is the Community Police Commission, which, while not elected, is currently made up of people with genuine community roots. However, the Commission has no direct power beyond the ability to speak out. It has no structural authority over police rules, policies or power to subpoena officers. I do, however, greatly applaud the current Community Police Commission for retaining and strengthening their ability to call out the police establishment, the political establishment, if it fails to produce genuine accountability. And I pledge my full support to you all in using that power to its full potential. The legislation by itself will not end the excessive use of force and racial profiling by Seattle police. It will not stop the police from targeting regular people who use their cell phones to record police violence, street medics, independent legal observers, journalists and activists like myself at peaceful protests. It will not stop the political establishment from sheltering officers who violate people's basic rights. We live in a country with over 2 million people in prison, disproportionately people of color. No other country, including brutal dictatorships in the past, have imprisoned so many. It is not an accident that many black and brown people and poor and working class people view police officers as an occupying army rather than an institution that serves the community here in Seattle. Donald Trump received only 8% of the vote, but was endorsed by the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Imagine how terrifying it must be for our immigrant, refugee, Latino and black sisters and brothers to know that many of us city police are among that 8%. The same police who have the authority to use violence against our people of color and our working class people. On February 5th, 2017, Seattle King County ACP President Gerald Henderson published an editorial in the Seattle Times that asked several important questions about the fatal shooting of Jay Taylor at the hands of Seattle police. He asked why after Chief Taylor was shot multiple times at point blank range, was he left bleeding on the ground for seven and a half minutes without any officer providing medical attention. Why did Seattle police released to the media information of his past criminal record immediately after they shot him? Does the leadership of Seattle police believe that criminal records authorizes the use of deadly force? Why did the mayor and the police chief tell the media that they thought officers acted appropriately in the days following the shooting before any investigation had been done? So far, no real answers have been forthcoming from elected officials. Chad Taylor and the countless others impacted by police violence are a grim but important reminder that we need to continue building mass movements for racial justice. The Black Lives Matter movement in Seattle and nationwide, the union movement of Seattle and King County and the successful BLOCK the bunker movement have shown that when activists get organized, we can make a real impact. Congratulations to the Community Police Commission for their hard work, for our thanks to central staff and city attorney member of staff members who worked on this legislation and above all, thanks to community activists. And yes, stop the sweeps and no new jail.
Speaker 0: The city's journey with this issue of police reform and accountability actually goes back many decades. I remember the early 1990s when we appointed our first OPA auditor and we had a citizen's commission that made a series of recommendations on how to include improve policing and the performance of our police officers. And we've repeated that cycle several times since then. This legislation is intended to stop that cycle so that we can actually have the type of constitutional, fair, respectful policing that we want in our city. And I would add effective policing. We actually want our police officers to do their jobs well. And thankfully, most of them do all of the time. And so I want to thank the women and men of the Seattle Police Department for their good work. They often have a very dangerous job and they keep reporting for work every day. And we're grateful for that. I also want to thank Cathy O'Toole, the chief of police. She has set a wonderful example of leadership and she has really led the reform effort inside the police department. And I hope she's here for many years into the future to continue doing that. I want to thank Mayor Murray as well. He came into office when this was all very active and quickly got up to speed and has done a really good job of through his staff members, ushering this forward and getting us to where we are today. Councilmember Bagshaw, I know you made a comment about at least two guards emails coming at midnight, but I've received multiple emails from Amy, say two and three and four in the morning and your boss is here, Amy. And I think she's earned a lot of time in the next few weeks. Earlier today, I spoke with Sam Walker. He is a professor emeritus of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and highly regarded as one of our country's leading criminologist and experts on police accountability and the effectiveness of policing. And here's what Sam Walker said to me. By passing this legislation, Seattle leaps to the head of the class nationally on police reform and accountability. Establishing three entities the Community Police Commission, the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and the Office of Police Accountability. Establishing these three entities to provide oversight of police practices and policies is a bold and exciting experiment that hasn't been done anywhere else. This is a solid example of community driven police accountability, and I'm optimistic about where Seattle will lead the nation. It will be very important. This is his cautionary word. It'll be very important that these three entities work very closely together, meet early and often, and learn how to honor and respect their unique roles and responsibilities. The people of Seattle deserve this, and so do your police officers. Working for constitutional and effective policing is an aspiration we all share. And I think Sam Walker got it right. Exactly. I also remember when the Department of Justice opened their investigation, and actually the Department of Justice was the first to suggest that we needed a community body that was heavily involved in this work. And I appreciate their contribution and the stimulus that they brought to city government to make sure that we do this work and hopefully get it right. Councilmember Gonzales. I do want to close our comments.
Speaker 3: It would be my honor. I would like to also start my remarks by saying some very important thank yous before we take the final vote on this incredibly important piece of legislation and a body of work that truly does reflect our next step in moving forward. I'd like to thank all of the council members who volunteered so much of their time to show up in my in my very, very special, special committee hearings. They just happened all the time. So they became special committee hearings instead of just regular ones. I'd like to thank Mayor Ed Murray for his work on getting the legislation primed and ready for city council to consider. I'd also like to thank his legal counsel, Ian Warner, who also played a significant role and in making sure that we received a package of police reform legislation that was ready for us to work on. Of course, our city attorney, Pete Holmes, Assistant City Attorney Andrew Marburg, Seattle Police Chief Cathy O'Toole. And like Councilmember Burgess, I'd also like to thank the officers of the Seattle Police Department who in reality we need them to be on the same page with us. We need them to recognize the importance of constitutional policing. I believe that a vast majority of them do, and I recognize that that the requirements that we impose upon the police department certainly do trickle down to the men and women of the police department who we rely on to implement constitutional policing every day. And that implementation of constitutional policing is not just good for us. It's not just good for the residents of Seattle who don't have a gun and who don't have a badge. It's it's good for public for for the public safety aspects, of course. But it's also incredibly important to keeping our officers safe as well. I'd also like to thank our OPI director, Pierce Murphy, who also provided us with with valuable technical assistance, as well as our former auditor, retired judge and Levinson, who's standing in the back who really gave us on council and the Community Police Commission a ton of technical assistance in making sure that we understood, based on the years of her work and the volumes of reports that she has generated, that we got some of the important aspects on the back end related to discipline, appeals and grievances. Right. And I think we have and there are so many others who contributed to the process of writing and reviewing this legislation. I want to thank all of those folks. But my deepest gratitude goes to Councilmember Tim Burgess, who is the vice chair of my committee, who is the chair of our budget committee, who has really worked tirelessly alongside with me to be able to do this massive overhaul of the base ordinance that we received through his unique lens of having been a police officer for for the city of Seattle at one point in time and lending us his expertize of having chaired the Public Safety Committee, I think at least, at least once, maybe twice. And so I really do appreciate all of the work that you have done to assist us in getting this bill in the right place. And let me tell you, if if senior rate us is a concept, which I think it is, it certainly does not apply to you because you even though this is your last year , this is quite a legacy that you are leaving behind for this for the residents of Seattle. And I want to I want to thank you for your commitment to continuing to work diligently and very hard for for the people of Seattle. I also want to take a moment to thank Amy Sy from Council Central, a staff. Amy, you are a machine. I just don't know how you do it every day. And I am so grateful for all of your help, your sacrifices. You have two small children. I know that you had to make a lot of sacrifices to to help us get this across the finish line. And I will be eternally grateful to you and my offer for a desk inside my office. It still stands. You're welcome. Anytime. Brianna Thomas, of course, from my office, who came to this body of work as a community organizer. And when I told her she was going to take over public safety and police reform, she made a very particular face that if you know, Brianna, you know which face I'm talking about, that you have really risen to the challenge and I have been impressed by your intellect, your commitment to listen and your ability to bring together very divergent beliefs, to get us all to a place where we can feel very good about the legislation that we're about to pass. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the Community Police Commission, and I know so many of you are in the room, so I'm going to ask that if you are on the CPC or were ever on the CPC, including staff, if you would be willing to stand on your feet so that we can recognize you. I. I know that our work is not done. This is, like I've said before, just a step in the right direction. But I just deeply appreciate all of the work that we've been able to do together with the CPC, including, you know, going to New Orleans and dancing in the streets while also learning about police accountability.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 3: And and but also having those serious conversations and literally locking ourselves in a room for two Saturdays in a row where we spent a total of 15 hours together to really try to figure out how to make this a big win for community and a big win for the entirety of the city. So I want to thank you for that. There were also, you might have heard in testimony, dozens of original members of the 35 organizations, which is growing, who worked with the ACLU of Washington to advocate that the Department of Justice come to Seattle and help us do what has always seemed within reach, but yet unachievable. And I know a lot of you are in the room today. And so I would ask those of you who are part of the original group six years ago to stand and be recognized for the fact that you did all this work. And I hope Reverend Walden doesn't punish me later for making her stand up a third time. But I'm going to ask that you stand because so much of the work that we have been doing in our community is was really started by you and by so many of the other women moms that that you organized within our community to to be brave and courageous and to stand on the right side of justice and on the right side of history. And in a lot of ways, I feel like today is a culmination of so much of the advocacy work that you have been doing for free. And I know it sometimes can feel like like it's ungrateful work. Like, nobody is going to recognize the work that you're doing. But I want you to know and believe that I.C.U. that we see you and that we so deeply appreciate all of the years, years and decades of service that you have provided to our community. So thank you, Reverend Weldon. It is because of the deep and steadfast commitment of so many in this community. That brings us to this truly historic moment. In so many instances, the fight for 15 secure scheduling, paid sick and safe time, monumental investments in human services, transportation and early education. Seattle continues to show time and time again that we lead. This ordinance is no exception. It is a model of what other communities across the country can expect to see as a result of Department of Justice consent decree processes that are fueled by community support. In Seattle, that community call to action and the DOJ's acceptance of that call is now paving the way to sustainable long term police reform without compromising officer or public safety. I truly believe that this that this will be an accountability system that will have legitimacy among our officers and police reform advocates. That is quite the achievement. But our work is not done. Although this is a significant step forward in our efforts to reform the police department and our accountability systems, this is but one additional step. Over the coming months and years, we will need to see these reforms over the finish line. Many of you know that I approach this work through a unique lens. As a civil rights attorney, I focused my practice on representing people who were subjected to excessive force and bias policing. And yes, I've even sued the Seattle Police Department. That work gave me firsthand knowledge of the complaint and investigation process, and I put that knowledge to work. As we struggled with this legislation. Indeed, it is this very issue that motivated my initial desire to want to serve the people of Seattle as a member city wide. Over the past 16 weeks, I have proudly led the city's work to ensure that this legislation adequately reflects the significant work previously done by the Community Police Commission to assess, analyze and incorporate the needs of community members most adversely affected by policing. That process has included seven committee hearings, two evening public hearings, over 50 meetings with C.P.S. leadership and staff. Multiple meetings with my colleagues, the mayor and the mayor's office. And a trip. And three trips across the country from Los Angeles to New York City to New Orleans to learn about best practices and standards. All of this has informed the work of my committee, and the results show in today's legislation, which has wide consensus within community and beyond. This legislation will set us on the path to take to changing the culture at speed, enhancing public trust in our officers, and always turning a mirror on ourselves to continuously improve rather than waiting for a crisis to reform. That has been my vision all along. This bill represents our collective vision of sweeping reforms designed to advance constitutional policing, which is good for community and good for public safety and good for the safety of officers. Thank you to all of my colleagues for indulging. Special committee hearing after special committee hearing. And I am deeply grateful to all of you in the audience today who weren't in those rooms. But I know you were pushing. I want to thank all of you for advocating for community driven police accountability and reform. Today would not be possible without you. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll on council? Bill 118969 as amended.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Herbold, I. Johnson. Suarez. O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. High eight. In favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it.
Speaker 5: Oh, my gosh.
Speaker 0: So just a note. We're going to take up a budget bill now related to the same topic and then the Public Safety Bill of rights. If you are going to leave. Would you please take your conversations outside so we can continue our work here? Thank you very much. We'll now move to agenda item seven. Will the clerk please read that in.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118908 An ordinance amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, creating and revising budget control levels, modifying positions and changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels all by a three quarter vote of the city council. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to civilian and community oversight of the police; adding a new Chapter 3.29 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); recodifying Subchapters VII, VIII, and IX of Chapter 3.28 of the SMC as Subchapters I, II, and III of Chapter 3.29; amending or repealing sections in Chapters 3.28, 4.08, and 14.12 of the SMC; and concerning Ordinance 118482. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05222017_CB 118908 | Speaker 3: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118908 An ordinance amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, creating and revising budget control levels, modifying positions and changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels all by a three quarter vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: This Council bill is related to the budget of the Office of Inspector General, so it just relates to the 2017 budget. So I will first move for the adoption of Council Bill 118908. Second. Okay. Do you need to say any words? Official words. Okay.
Speaker 0: It came.
Speaker 4: With a do pass.
Speaker 0: Recommendation.
Speaker 3: Council bill 118908 would create a revised budget control level and provide funding and position authority to start a new Office of Inspector General for the Public Safety in 2017. This bill adds funding in the amount of $354,300 for the OAG sufficient to support staffing for the remainder of 2017. The bill also moves the CPC into a new vehicle that that is its own office of the CPC separate from the Executive Department. Finally, the bill renames the Office of Professional Accountability Vehicle to Office of Police Accountability PCL in order to address funding for the work of these three entities beyond 2017. The Mayor and the Council, in consultation with the OIG, the OPA and the CPC, will set their budgets on an annual basis during the city's regular budget process. So the budget bill before us only addresses what would be set up costs for the Office of Inspector General in 2017 only. And it also does it makes some technical edits to administrative ways to reference in the budget, the budget of the office of the CPC and the OIG in the OIG and the EPA.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: GONZALEZ Hi.
Speaker 6: HERBOLD Hi.
Speaker 1: Johnson or S O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw Burgess Aden favor an unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read item eight. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, creating and revising budget control levels, modifying positions, and changing appropriations to various departments and budget control levels; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05222017_Res 31742 | Speaker 3: Agenda item ten Resolution 31742. A resolution granting conceptual approval to Lakefront Investors one LLC and Lakefront Investors two LLC to construct, install and maintain four sets of private communication conduits under the under an across Bourn Avenue, north north of Mercer Street, and underground across the alley between Bourne Avenue North and Fairview Avenue, north north of Mercer Street . The committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 2: Thanks. This will grant conceptual approval for private communication conduits connecting four buildings in South Lake Union that will become Google's South Lake Union campus. The final term permit ordinance will come later this year.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments? All in favor of approving resolution 31742 Vote I II oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted and the chair will sign it. Item Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31753. Please read the title.
Speaker 3: Adoption of Other Resolutions. Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31753a Resolution Relating to Police Accountability instructing the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety and Community Police Commission to review and recommend changes to Seattle laws, policies and practices within the scope of their expertize. Introduced May 22nd, 2017.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Gonzales already talked about the contents of the resolution during council briefing this morning. I'll just say for the record that this companion resolution to the legislation that we just passed as part of the report of the Gender Equity Subcommittee's numerous committee captures activities that are related to police accountability but that do not need to be codified in the Seattle Municipal Code, largely because they are one time in it nature rather than ongoing aspects of our accountability system. So with that being said, I would move for the adoption of resolution 31753.
Speaker 0: I second that. Any questions or comments all in favor of adopting resolution 31753 vote. I oppose vote no. The resolution is unanimously adopted in the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? Council members so want.
Speaker 10: To be excused from the full Council meeting on June 5th, 2017.
Speaker 0: June five? Yeah, it's moved in second and the council members won't be excused on June five. All in favor vote i. I opposed any other business.
Speaker 6: I think we should note that Amy Shea is still sitting here, and then I think it's time for her vacation to start.
Speaker 3: As is Andrew.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thanks to both of you. All right. The council will be adjourned. Thank you.
Speaker 3: So. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION granting conceptual approval to Lakefront Investors 1 LLC and Lakefront Investors 2 LLC to construct, install, and maintain four sets of private communication conduits under and across Boren Avenue North, north of Mercer Street, and under and across the alley between Boren Avenue North and Fairview Avenue North, north of Mercer Street. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_05152017_CB 118954 | Speaker 1: The Report of the Energy and Environment Committee Agenda Item one Council Bill 118954. An ordinance relating to the City Light Department declaring as surplus certain real property interests in BLOCK one Joseph R McLaughlin's waterfront. In addition to the city of Seattle authorizing the general manager and chief executive officer of the City Light Department to grant a utility easement to King County and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the Council bill pass.
Speaker 0: Council members who want.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Harrell. This is a routine easement ordinance that grants a utility easement to King County to construct and operate and maintain a drainage pipe from the Georgetown Weather Treatment and station to the South Michigan street outfall. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends Council pass this bill.
Speaker 0: Gather any further questions. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Burgess, Gonzalez Johnson Suarez by O'Brien. I want I am President Harrell sues me back to Aden favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passenger assignment. Please read the part of the Human Services and Public Health Committee. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring as surplus certain real property interests in Block 1, Joseph R. McLaughlin’s Water Front Addition to The City of Seattle; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the City Light Department to grant a utility easement to King County; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04172017_CB 118946 | Speaker 2: Third part of the Gender Equity.
Speaker 0: Safe Communities and New Americans Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 946 relating to the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget. Changing Appropriations for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs to provide $1 million from the General Fund in 2017 with an automatic carry forward to 2018 solely to provide legal representation or to provide guidance and referral services for legal representation to indigent Seattle residents and workers in immigration proceedings. In establishing centers.
Speaker 3: For the provision of.
Speaker 0: Legal representation and guidance and referral services for legal representation all by 3/1 vote of the City Council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. I would like to move for the adoption of Council Bill 118946. Thank you. This ordinance is designed to add $1 million to the budget for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs in order to establish a legal defense fund. The Legal Defense Fund will be administered as a grant by the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs and will be subject to a competitive request for proposals process that will include consultation with potential nonprofit organizations who would be able to use those funds to be able to provide these types of services. The services that are intended to be provided are really with regard to anything related to an immigration proceeding that includes complex naturalization cases, which we heard some testimony about today. It will also include providing removal defense. And really, we're going to bring in community into the request for proposal process to give us a better understanding of how these funds should be prioritized and what the greatest need for our existing immigrant and refugee community might be. And so I'm going to reserve comments for the end right before the passage of the bill, but I wanted to just describe the nuts and bolts of what the legal defense fund would be and and how that relates to the request for proposal process. And finally, we hope to be able to once this is passed, we hope to be able to infuse these funds into the community sometime in June.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Burgess, as co-sponsor, would you like to say a few words?
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. First, thank you to Councilmember Gonzales for your leadership on bringing this forward. As I said a couple of weeks ago when we first talked about this, I think cities and counties that value and protect immigrants are actually stronger communities. Recent studies have shown that they have less crime and stronger economies. This particular legislation here will, by enabling and establishing the Legal Defense Fund, will strengthen Seattle and our region and is certainly very consistent with the values that we hold and cherish so much. It will uphold the rule of law and protect immigrant rights. It will prevent families from being unfairly torn apart. And it will enable our businesses to thrive with the valuable talents that immigrants bring to our community. This legislation is good for people appearing in front of our immigration courts. It's good for our economy. It's good for public health and safety. It's good for all of us as Seattleites.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Burgess. Any of my colleagues like to say a few words about this. What? I'm considering landmark legislation. Told us that customers want.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Harold. And very happy to be able to vote in favor of this ordinance to allocate $1,000,000 to a legal defense fund for detained immigrants. As many of the accounts have highlighted during public testimony, having access to legal representation can make all the difference to the many human beings who are caught in this extremely unjust system. I thank all the dedicated legal service providers throughout this nation who are doing this important work. I wanted to share one story that I was part of, which collectible Legado del Pueblo, which is a really important group providing such services. Many of them, as one of our speakers said, are indigent and cannot afford these services. So it's really important the work that they're doing. But they had organized this political action in coordination with the legal defense that was being carried out. And so we were all gathered at the ICE office in Dakota last week in solidarity with Jose Robles, who has who is you know, he's going to be in the process of deportation, unfortunately, unless we build a movement that will stop it. But the reason I'm mentioning this is because in my mind, it was a very important confluence of legal action and political and mass action that need to go hand in hand. In my view and my own experience of being there was really poignant to me as an immigrant, because when you go to this office in Aquila, there's a happy floor where people go for their citizenship and swearing in. But I went a few years ago as an immigrant and there's two floors up is what I call the room of hopelessness, where so many people end up, where you either go in with, you know, you or you only come out with paperwork that you live on borrowed time in the country, or you go out with an ankle bracelet or you're picked up for deportation. It truly is the room of hopelessness. And it was a room where regular working people end up. There were so many women there, women with children, children with their toys. It is an absolutely it's an absolute indictment of the completely dysfunctional and unjust system that we have. And we were there in solidarity with Jose Robles, who is a family man with children. His young daughters were in tears. And I thought that was the most striking thing about him, was that he was a worker who helped build the Capitol building in Olympia, which is the capital of our state. It's such an irony that people who actually lay down the bricks of the capital building of our state are also being targeted. And it really highlights how widespread the need is to build our movement. I also wanted to say that because of this, we have to remember that we will not be able to win a decent society on a case by case basis. So along with the legal defense, we also need to build a political mass movement that stands in solidarity with immigrants. There were so many important examples May 4th, 2006, when immigrants nationwide went out on strike and defeated the Sensenbrenner bill. And more recently, we had the success of the approach. When Trump trade is Muslim travel ban and mass demonstrations, peaceful demonstrations shut down airports across the country. That was the starting point for the victory against that Muslim ban. And there's another example from history. When an overwhelmingly Republican Supreme Court passed Roe v Wade, which was a landmark abortion rights decision that was under the right wing Richard Nixon administration. All of these victories were won solely because mass movement decided to build independently of the political status quo. And right now, as another speaker mentioned, are immigrants. Sisters and brothers are helping to build that movement with hundreds of detainees at the Northwest Detention Center, having started a hunger strike last week to protest inedible food, a dollar a day, wages which are slaves, wages and other inhumane conditions. I really thank everybody who has already become part of the movement and urge everybody watching this to join us on May 1st, which is International Workers Day and also historically immigrant rights protest day. So let's all fight together, right?
Speaker 1: To my colleagues, I'll say a few, and then I'll turn it back over to one of the sponsors. I describe this as landmark legislation because indeed I think that it is, and I think it's very appropriate that it's coming from a committee with the term new Americans in its title. You know, this rhetoric about making America great again. I think what we're missing is to make America great. You invest in the immigrant refugee communities that you see the strength that that brings to a country and brings to a city and brings to a county, and you invest in that strength. And so I think this cuts at the core of where we need to go as a civilization. And I look at this as an investment. So I'm very proud to serve with colleagues that see the wisdom of this investment and prioritize this in a budget where we have competing demands on the budget. And so I think this is what Making America Great is all about, is welcoming people to our country. So thank you for this, and I'd be very proud to support it when it comes time to vote. So having said that, Councilmember Gonzales, would you like to close the debate on the issue?
Speaker 0: I would. Thank you so much. I want to thank everybody who has spoken on behalf of and in favor of the legal defense fund. I want to just take a minute to thank all of the community leaders and members of the community who came out today to provide public testimony in support of this, the immigrant rights immigrant excuse me, Immigrant Refugee Commission. Noor Gonzales Hawk as a Latina MP Rewa Ethiopian Community Council, Ala Care, Church Greeter, Church Council, Seattle, CIC and so many others who have been incredibly supportive of our effort to to make sure that we can find funding for such an important program. I want to thank my co-sponsor, Councilmember Burgess, for working with my office to make sure we could find the money and to make sure that the legislation was as pristine and clean as it could be. You're an excellent editor. Thank you so much. I also want to thank the mayor's office and the city budget office for also assisting us. I want to thank the Office of Immigrant Refugee Affairs for giving us insight and making sure that we have enough flexibility in the underlying legislation to make sure we truly meet the needs of the community. And of course, I want to thank Patricia Lee from central staff, who was the primary lead on drafting the legislation. And I also want to thank my office staff, Roxana, who helped us organize so many of the of the community to be with us today. And Genevieve Jones, who did so much of the research and policy work up and worked closely with members in the community to make sure that, again, our proposal would be one that was reflective of what the true needs of the community are. So, Genevieve, thank you so much. I know you're hearing her tweeting, but I really want to thank you for all the hard work that you did. And then our our most recent addition to the office is V. And she has been really helpful in helping us get this over the finish line. So thank you so much for that as well. And I just wanted to note that as we are having this debate, we are standing as one with King County as well, who is currently passing their own funding for for immigrant refugee communities. And they're calling there's a resiliency fund which provides, in addition to funds for legal defense, a host of other wrap around funding that will really complement what we're doing here in the city. So it's pretty amazing to be taking this type of legislative action collectively as one with our county. You know, a lot of a lot of you know that I come from an immigrant family myself. My parents came here from Michoacan, Mexico, when I was when before any of my siblings were born. They came here as undocumented immigrants from Mexico and lived in the shadows for many years, several years before being able to adjust their own status. And I grew up in central Washington State in the lower Yakima Valley, where it was a common occurrence for people to live in mixed status families, whether it's your mom or your dad or your aunt or your uncles or your cousins. There's that concept of living in a community where not everybody has the privilege of having been born in this country is a reality. And I often remember times when our neighbors who were undocumented had gotten whispers of the fact that there were that ice was in the neighborhood and they were doing roundups. And let me tell you, the chilling effect that that has on a community is remarkable. You know, kids stop going to school. People stop playing in the street. Nobody goes to the grocery store. These are real life impacts. That's fear that we talk about when we talk about the threat of deportation or being detained is not a hypothetical. It is felt by our communities every day. And just because we live in progressive Seattle doesn't mean that our community isn't feeling that same sense of fear. And and and to me, this is a. A really beautiful opportunity for this council and for this city to truly stand on its values, not just in not just by virtue of showing up at protests and and rallies, but by putting those values into legislation and funding real, meaningful resources for immigrant refugee communities so that they can have the best chance, their only fighting chance to stay here in our community and continue to contribute positively and not be separated from their families under these draconian immigration laws that we have that have needed to be and that we have demanded to be updated and reformed for many, many, many years. And so this is I'm so honored and humbled to be able to be a co-sponsor on this legislation and to advance this forward today. You know, at the end of the day, due process, it's a cornerstone of our democracy. And this is exactly what this legal defense fund recognizes is the concept of due process. The concept of of an inviolable right to be able to access legal representation so that you can have due process is is what we are doing today. And you know what it is? This is a timely matter for us right now. As we speak, people in the Northwest Detention Center are refusing to eat, to protest inhumane treatments. They've organized a hunger strike before. This is not the first time that this hunger strike has been as has been demanded. And in fact, I as the former board chair of One America, the state's largest immigrant advocacy organization, we as that organization commissioned a study that found many years ago a string of human rights violations that were occurring at our Northwest detention center. And so these hunger strikes are absolutely important for us to understand what is motivating them. And our fund will hopefully address the need for the representation that those individuals have. And my hope is that we will be able to put these dollars to good use so that when Trump continues to assemble his mass deportation force, we have an opportunity to, at a minimum, tell our community that we will be there with you standing next to you shoulder to shoulder when that moment happens, because because of no one else is going to give you a fighting chance. We will. And this is how we do that. So with that being said, I'd like to vote on this one.
Speaker 1: Okay. Please call the roll on the pastor of the bill.
Speaker 7: Marez o'brien. So I thank Shaw Burgess Gonzalez, I Herbold Johnson.
Speaker 2: President Harrell. All right.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor nine opposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chairman Bradley Simon. Very good. Please read the next agenda item into the record. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs to provide $1,000,000 from the General Subfund in 2017 with an automatic carry-forward to 2018, solely to provide legal representation, or to provide guidance and referral services for legal representation, to indigent Seattle residents and workers in immigration proceedings; and establishing standards for the provision of legal representation and guidance and referral services for legal representation; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04172017_CF 314376 | Speaker 0: It's an item to click file 314 376 Documents relating to the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs to increase funding for legal representation, guidance and referral services for indigent Seattle residents and workers in immigration proceedings. The Committee recommends if all be.
Speaker 2: Placed on file.
Speaker 1: Concerning Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: This is a companion bill to the bill that we just voted on. It is a clerk file that puts into the record all of the statistics, facts and evidence that would support the the legal defense fund and its efficacy in terms of providing immigrants with an opportunity to to adequately defend against removal proceedings and deportation proceedings. And so with that being said, I will. Leave it there. Do I need a move for its adoption?
Speaker 1: No, you do not. It came out of committee so we can just vote on it. Any comments on this? Clerk file those in favor of the file being filed. Vote i i. Those oppose. Vote no. The motion carries and the clerk file is filed. We lost our fans on that, but that's okay. Please read the Human Services in Public Health Committee Agenda item into the record, please. | Clerk File (CF) | Documents relating to Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs to increase funding for legal representation, guidance and referral services, for indigent Seattle residents and workers in immigration proceedings. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04172017_CB 118943 | Speaker 1: We lost our fans on that, but that's okay. Please read the Human Services in Public Health Committee Agenda item into the record, please.
Speaker 3: The report of the Human.
Speaker 0: Services and Public Health Committee and Item three Council 118 943 relating to preparations for the Human Services Department and many Ordinance 125207, which adopt the 2017 budget lifting provides and verifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 1: That's very big.
Speaker 2: Show. Thank you very much. And after what we've just gone through, one say thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Burgess, for this. So this one's going to be quick. Last November, during our fall budget, we placed a proviso holding 475 $5,000 in finance general so that our Human Services Department could design what we called the Community Connector program that would be co-located with food banks in Seattle. They came back to us in my Human Services Committee last week, provided the outline on how they want to proceed. The cost will be less than originally thought. $355,000. We're going to have the pilot gathering the necessary data so we can know how many people are positively helped, what kinds of help do they get? How did they actually get the service there on the spot as contrasted to be handed, another phone number or another contact? I'm very interested in seeing what we can do to get the utility discount program or capacities and other things available for people when they show up. So with that, we're recommending that the proviso be lifted and the committee recommended unanimously that we do so and vote on it in this committee today.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Councilmember. Actually, any further comments? If not, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 7: Suarez O'Brian. High Swan.
Speaker 2: Bagshaw.
Speaker 7: Burgess. Gonzalez. Herbold High Johnson. President Harrell.
Speaker 2: All nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and share with Senate. Please read agenda item number four. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Human Services Department; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04172017_CB 118944 | Speaker 0: Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Agenda Item five Constable 118 944 Leading to Seattle Public Utilities authorizing general manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities to apply for funding assistance from the Washington State Recreation Conservation Office Funding Board to accept specified grants and to execute, deliver and perform corresponding agreements.
Speaker 2: Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council Bill 11 8944 is a rattlesnake lake. Trail Grant Authorization Ordinance. It authorizes the general manager for Seattle Public Utilities to apply for funding assistance in the form of a grant from the Washington State Recreation Conservation Office Funding Board to improve the rattlesnake ledge. It also authorizes acceptance of the grant should it be awarded. The trail is.
Speaker 2: Very, very.
Speaker 3: Popular with 200,000 hikers each year compared to the 40000 to 50000 originally assumed when the trail was constructed. Esper is requesting $150,000 to supplement other grants in-kind services from including in-kind services from groups like Mountain to Sound Greenway to help bring the trail up to a standard consistent with its use.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I do have one question by show of hands. How many of you have actually been on the rattlesnake trail to the top? Oh, okay. Okay. Just wanted.
Speaker 4: To go to.
Speaker 1: Any further comments on this legislation. Please call the role on the passage of the Bill Press.
Speaker 2: Because we've been outdoors, she says, I wasn't talking. I'm sorry. You get to me.
Speaker 1: You just say I.
Speaker 2: I hope I am so.
Speaker 7: John Burgess.
Speaker 2: Hi. Gonzalez. Hi, purple. Hi Johnson President Herrell hi.
Speaker 0: Nine in favor non oppose.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and sure was Senate. We've gone through our agenda for the day and there's one more text. There's one more. Oh, I'm sorry I'm on the back base. Please read agenda item number six and you can read the short version please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of Seattle Public Utilities to apply for funding assistance from the Washington State Recreation Conservation Office Funding Board, to accept specified grants, and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04172017_CB 118947 | Speaker 1: Bill passed and sure was Senate. We've gone through our agenda for the day and there's one more text. There's one more. Oh, I'm sorry I'm on the back base. Please read agenda item number six and you can read the short version please.
Speaker 0: And item six, cancel 118 947 relating to the drainage and wastewater systems of the City of Seattle Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: HERBOLD Thank you. Council Bill 11 8947 is the 2017 drainage in wastewater bond ordinance. The Drainage and Wastewater System Bond Ordinance was submitted to council outside of the annual budget process in order to take care take advantage of favorable market conditions. The proposal authorizes a 30 year fixed rate bond issuance of $205 million in mid 2017 to pay for 18 months of drainage in wastewater capital improvements, issuance costs and deposits into space. Debit Debt Service Reserve Fund proceeds from the bond sale will fund capital programs like ESPs combined sewer overflow projects, sediment remediation and gasworks, park and the Duwamish River, sewer pipe rehabilitation, flooding prevention and other long term drainage and wastewater investments. The bond size is consistent with the 2017 adopted budget. The proposed issuance has been reviewed and approved by the city's Debt Management Policy Advisory Committee, and all of the projects that are proposed to be funded with this bond issuance have been also improved , approved by.
Speaker 0: RCP, their capital improvement program.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Any further questions? This legislation, please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Whereas I.
Speaker 7: O'BRIEN So what.
Speaker 2: I picture.
Speaker 7: Burgess Gonzalez I Herbold Johnson President Harrell I.
Speaker 0: Might am favorite unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passed and chair will sign it. Is there any further business to come in for the council?
Speaker 2: Yes. I believe I will.
Speaker 1: Make a motion that council member, whereas be excused from the May 30th 2017 meeting is their second. All those in favor of councilmember words being excused from the May 30th meeting vote i. I oppose. The ayes have it. And then I would like to be excused from the May 22nd full council meeting. So moved in seconded that I be excused from the May 22nd full council meeting. All those in favor say i. I. No. Got one? No. The nos don't get it. Thank you very much. And with that, it wouldn't have a great day. And we stand adjourned. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the drainage and wastewater system of The City of Seattle; adopting a system or plan of additions and betterments to and extensions of the existing drainage and wastewater system; authorizing the issuance and sale of drainage and wastewater revenue bonds, in one or more series, for the purposes of paying part of the cost of carrying out that system or plan, providing for the reserve requirement, and paying the costs of issuance of the bonds; providing for certain terms, conditions, covenants and the manner of sale of the bonds; describing the lien of the bonds; creating certain accounts of the City relating to the bonds; amending certain provisions set forth in the Omnibus Refunding Bond Ordinance relating to drainage and wastewater refunding revenue bonds; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04102017_CB 118753 | Speaker 8: Three prior the Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda Item for accountable 118 753 relating to license only amending sections 25.0 5.6 75 and point 800 synonymous for code to clarify an update references to the Comprehensive Plan and Restore the Categorical Exemptions for State Environmental Policy Act Review of proposed infill developments committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Herald This was a bill that we had in committee for longer than we had the comprehensive plan last year. Thanks for referencing it, Amelia. This bill restores something called our categorical exemption for our State Environmental Policy Act thresholds in urban centers back to the levels established by council in 2012. We had a lot of rigorous debate about this. The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections has a set of protocols that they asked developers to go through that we felt were redundant with what a developer has to go through in order to fulfill the obligations outlined in the CBA documents that the state requires of us. For several years it was the Council adopted policy that developments under a certain number of units. We're not required to go through this CPA process because of those additional requirements that we put on development through our Department of Construction and an inspection process. And so the action that we'll take today would remove the CPA thresholds from just urban centers. So our six urban centers in the city and we've asked the Seattle Department of Construction inspections to come back around to us and talk to us about the implications of what removing those thresholds would mean inside our urban villages. To the committee, you adopted this unanimously after several, several months of rigorous debate at committee, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Justin. And then any further comments about this bill? Please call the rule on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson, I. Suarez. O'Brian. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold. President Harrell. All nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of Senate. Please read the part of the planning land use and I'm sorry the affordable housing neighborhoods in Finance Committee three four.
Speaker 8: The Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda and five accountable 1189 37 million to the redevelopment. Yes. Retirees by the Housing Authority. The cities that authorized the mayor to execute an amendment to the Terrorist Cooperative Agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle that was authorized by Ordinance 123 961 authorizing the Director of Housing to | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 25.05.675 and 25.05.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify and update references to the Comprehensive Plan and restore the categorical exemptions for State Environmental Policy Act review of proposed “infill” development. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04102017_CB 118937 | Speaker 8: The Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda and five accountable 1189 37 million to the redevelopment. Yes. Retirees by the Housing Authority. The cities that authorized the mayor to execute an amendment to the Terrorist Cooperative Agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle that was authorized by Ordinance 123 961 authorizing the Director of Housing to implement the Cooperative Agreement as amended and modifying for confirming certain prior acts. Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: That's when.
Speaker 10: BURGESS Thank you. Back in 2012, the city entered into agreement with the Seattle Housing Authority to redevelop the Hassler Terrace Housing Project. And this legislation changes some expenditures and the building site location. It allows money that was allocated to be spent in 2016, to be spent in 2017, and it moves a building from block six to block eight. BLOCK six is on the south side of the Hassler Terrace. BLOCK eight is on the north side, very close to the old steam plant smokestack. And the committee recommends that this be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any comments on this bill? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson All right. Suarez O'Brian. Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzalez, I Herbold. Hi, President Harrell. All right. Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read agenda item number six.
Speaker 8: Agenda item six cancel 118 936. Relating to lease agreement for Office Space Authorizing Director of Finance Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with near Su LLC, a Washington limited liability company for office space and the 464 12th Avenue Building to be used as a central customer service center and ratifying, confirm research and prior acts. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the redevelopment of Yesler Terrace by the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle; authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the Yesler Terrace Cooperative Agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle that was authorized by Ordinance 123961; authorizing the Director of Housing to implement the Cooperative Agreement as amended; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04102017_CB 118936 | Speaker 8: Agenda item six cancel 118 936. Relating to lease agreement for Office Space Authorizing Director of Finance Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with near Su LLC, a Washington limited liability company for office space and the 464 12th Avenue Building to be used as a central customer service center and ratifying, confirm research and prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass because remember.
Speaker 10: This is a lease agreement that moves the city's customer service bureau from the promenade at 23rd Avenue and South Jackson Street to 464 12th Avenue. The building that we currently lease at 23rd in Jackson is going to be redeveloped, and so the city has to move its office. It'll be on 12th Avenue, just north of the Hassler way, and the committee recommends the approval of the lease.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill.
Speaker 2: Johnson.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: As I O'Brien by Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess Gonzales I Herbold II. President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and Chair of Senate. Please read item seven and eight together. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to a lease agreement for office space; authorizing the Director of Finance and Administrative Services to enter into a lease agreement with NearSU, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, for office space in the 464 12th Avenue Building to be used as the Central Customer Service Center; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04102017_CB 118935 | Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Burgess, for 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 Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.
Speaker 8: The Report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. Agenda Item nine Cancel 118 935 Relating to Seattle Public Utilities updating and consolidating provisions related to Seattle recycling requirements and in many sections 21.30 6.0, 82 and point zero 83 of the Senate Code Committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Cast Member Herbold Thank you.
Speaker 9: In August 2014, the Council passed Ordinance 12 4582, which prohibited residential and commercial customers from disposing food waste in compostable paper as garbage. In 2015, the Pacific Legal Foundation challenged the city in court, alleging monitoring of garbage for prohibited materials violates people's privacy. In April 26, I'm sorry, in April 2016, King County Superior Court confirmed Seattle's authority to prohibit items from from garbage and supported Seattle's practice of visually monitoring, garbage for recycling and other prohibited items in plain view. However, the court also ruled that certain aspects of Spears director's rule were unconstitutional, and the court found that these rules authorized you to conduct unwarranted searches of residential garbage, although that was not the practice. The ruling did not impact monitoring of commercial and multifamily containers. The proposed ordinance updates operations language in the city code to be consistent with the court ruling and specifically eliminates monitoring as it relates to finding significant amounts of recyclables in in garbage and replace it with the ability to note recyclables in plain view.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Johnson, I.
Speaker 2: Whereas I. O'Brien. Hi, Suzanne. Hi. Burgess.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez, I. Herbold. Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: I think. Let the record reflect that Councilmember Burgess was sort of choked up emotionally on that bill. So the bill passed. And Cheryl, sign it. Please read. Agenda Items ten and 11 into the record.
Speaker 8: The report on the Sustainability and Transportation Committee agenda items ten and 11 appointments 651 and 62. Appointment of Katie. Garo as member. Excuse me. Katie. Garo and. No, that's correct. Appointment of Katie Girl as member Levy to move Seattle Oversight Committee for term to December 31st, 2018 and appointment of Blake Trask as member Levy to move Seattle | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; updating and consolidating provisions relating to Seattle recycling requirements; and amending Sections 21.36.082 and 21.36.083 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04032017_Res 31740 | Speaker 1: Please read the first agenda item into the record.
Speaker 4: The report of the full council agenda item one Resolution 317 40 stating the city Seattle City Council's opposition to Keystone XL Pipeline and requesting the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to investigate waste to service contracting criteria to prioritize the city's goals. To avoid contracting with financial institutions are provided with project level loans or other financial services.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me sort of quarterback as through the first I'll relinquish the Florida Councilmember Swamp that I believe you have an amendment you would like to start off with was a substitution of Virgin. So you could walk us through that. So Council Councilmember, you have the floor.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President. Harold. I should I. Sorry. In terms of procedure, should I first move?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Why don't we do that? And then.
Speaker 5: We'll. Okay. And then. Yeah, and then I'll, I'd like to make a few introductory comments before I move resolution 31740.
Speaker 1: Okay. Second has been second to Councilman Johnson.
Speaker 5: I will talk to a substitute in a second.
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry. Where you moving this? Where you. Where you amending it? I have an amendment as well. So you actually moved the bill, so it's in place and now we can start amending it so you can do the introduction. That was.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: Amendment second. Very good.
Speaker 5: Thank you. On Friday, March 24, the same day that he failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act because of a revolt nationwide, Trump announced that his administration was issuing the federal permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands crude oil from Canada across the U.S. for refinement. Tar sands are by far the most environmentally destructive source of crude oil. If it is extracted and used, it will massively accelerate the climate change that is already leading to catastrophe for so many people around the world, including rising sea levels, floods, storms, wildfires and droughts. In February, Seattle passed a strong ordinance to divest from Wells Fargo and establish socially responsible financial policies. Today, I believe we should think in accordance with that ordinance and recognize there is absolutely nothing socially responsible about the Keystone XL pipeline. Tens of thousands of activists have joined the movement against the Keystone XL and have organized demonstrations and peaceful, direct actions. In November of 2011, the Obama administration temporarily backed down from Kiev XL, but that was only after repeated protest actions and is amendment actually came just days after its announcement and I think it was a capitulation on his part came just days after more than 10,000 people encircled the White House protesting the project. And, as Carlinville incorrectly stated in public comment. That protest that encircled the White House helped kick start the climate justice movement. But at the same time that day, Naomi Klein, who was part of that protest, also correctly credited the Occupy Wall Street movement with helping jumpstart the Keystone XL movement. And this shows us that the strategy of building movements works. This was the second major action against the project organized by Bill McKibben through Oregon Tar Sands Action. And I'm happy to say Bill McKibben just tweeted in support of our resolution here. And today those very same activists have been joined by thousands more young people and are asking Seattle City Council to join their movement to block the Keystone XL pipeline and make it clear to the financial institutions TransCanada will try to get loans from that. The key Xcel Project is toxic. It is toxic to the environment. It is toxic to indigenous communities. It is toxic to all human beings. And we are building a movement that will make it toxic to any financial institution that makes the mistake of investing in it. Resolutions are not legally binding like ordinances are. But financial institutions know that a resolution like this, which if the resolution clearly stated Seattle's intent is not an empty threat because we did it, we passed an ordinance with divesting Wells Fargo, and that action inspired activists around the country to push for their cities and towns to do the same. And the purpose of this resolution is the same. We don't believe that with by the resolution itself, we will have conquered the oil industry. But we are doing it with the purpose of building a movement around the nation. As a matter of fact, as we vote on this resolution today. Right now, a committee of the Los Angeles City Council is discussing divesting the city of Los Angeles from Wells Fargo. These are real results that come from building movements. And I have some comments later about amendments that were referred to in the public comment, the amendment from Councilmember Herbold. But right now, I just want to make sure that everybody understands there are some technical and clarifying amendments from Councilmember Suarez that I don't think are going to be controversial and that have been incorporated into our version two of my resolution. So I move to amend Resolution 31740, substituting version two for version 1/2.
Speaker 1: Okay. Is the amendment advanced by councilman want subsequent version two for version one has been made in second. Any further comments about that amendment? That particular amendment? All those in favor of that amendment. Vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. So we have a new substitute version. I am aware of a possible other amendment and now would be the appropriate time to talk about that. Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: I moved to amend a resolution 31740 by amending Section two and adding the mayor's concurrence in the be it resolve clause and the signature block. The amendment clarifies that the resolution is connected to existing city policies, courts language regarding social investment policies that the Council adopted in February as part of the legislation that ended the city's relationship with Wells Fargo and adopted fair business practices for all contracts. The resolution itself, as as it is currently written, requests FASB to, quote, investigate ways to establish contracting criteria. But the count the council cannot obligate a department to do that by request. With this amendment, we have the mayor's concurring language, which means it will have executive branch support and greater likelihood that the work that the council is asking be done actually be done. So if ultimately we are interested in making sure that our banking practices reflect our values, we actually need the executive to do this work specifically that the that FASB investigate ways to establishing concrete contracting criteria that prioritize the city's goals of avoiding contracting for banking services to the city of Seattle with financial institutions that provide financial services to trans Trans-Canada. In addition, it was mentioned before that my office had done research on the eligibility of banking institutions to bid for Seattle's services in the future. There are 63 banks that the Public Deposit Protection Commission has authorized to provide banking services to governments within Washington State. The research that my office did said of those 63 banks and total only ten, according to I'm sorry, 11 according to the criteria and are S.W. 5958 would be eligible to bid on the city's services . You take that number 11 down to ten with the action that the council took recently with Wells Fargo. And those are those are banks that might be eligible to bid for Seattle's services. We don't know for certain that they are, because we have still other banking criteria that we are currently asking the the the executive to make sure that of the ten remaining banks. What number of those banks would fulfill the city's banking criteria? One in particular that is I feel very important is that we can only accept.
Speaker 2: Bids.
Speaker 6: From financial institutions that have received received a rating of outstanding in their most recent Community Reinvestment Act. In the review done by the by the Fed and the Committee Reinvestment Act is the the the obligation that financial institutions have to reinvest in low income neighborhoods and avoid practices like redlining. So this is another standard that these ten banks that we've already identified have not yet been measured against. And so, again, we need to know we have an obligation to to our employees to be able to to pay them. And we need a bank in order to pay them. And so we need to really work collaboratively with the executive in identifying which banking institutions can can really reflect our values. And I think the amendment allows us to do so.
Speaker 1: Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER I'll just to be. Earlier you describe the amendment and you made the motion as their second on Councilmember Herbold motion. Okay, I got a second on the record. Further discussion. Council member Sawant.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Herald. This amendment changes the language that says, quote, The Seattle City Council does not support doing business with financial institutions that invest in Keystone XL pipeline, unquote. With what I believe is watered down language that says that we are code. That said, the city code, the Seattle City Council is concerned about doing business with financial institutions so its changing does not support to concerned about. I want to be clear, as an elected representative for my own opinion, I do not support doing business with financial institutions that invest in Keystone XL pipeline. And if council members do not support, then that's the resolution that we should vote on and we should not be afraid to say so. Councilmembers who are supporting this amendment are worried that if the Council unambiguously states its intent to not want to do business with financial institutions invested in the Keystone XL pipeline, that the banks will be afraid to apply to be the bank of the city. But I would like to quote Ali Khan, an author of Seattle, who eloquently said, Scaring the banks is exactly the point.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: And I think that. At this moment, elected representatives throughout the nation have a political and moral obligation to clearly oppose investment in such destructive projects. At the very least, we have to do basic things to move to a different situation. We have to if if there are no banks existing that will qualify, then we have to fight to set up a public bank. We have to. We have to fight to lift the state ban on banking with credit unions. And as a matter of fact, there was a legislation that passed with a big majority in the state House, but then got defeated in the Republican controlled Senate, which just happened recently. And that also shows that we have to continue building a movement. We can't rely on the on either of the two big business parties because they are both bought out by the oil lobby. And and the purpose of this resolution is to continue building this that movement. But I believe that we have to go even farther than that, even farther than doing basic measures. We're not moving this resolution, myself and our movement. We are not moving this resolution with the illusion that just this resolution is capable of making Seattle an island of purity in the context of global capitalism. We know that's not going to happen. But as our planet is on the verge of climate catastrophe, history is calling on us to show courage to imagine a different kind of world. We have to change the world. But changing the world requires building mass movements globally. And this resolution, in my view, is in service of building those movements. And. In that in that in mind, I think the intent of the resolution should be stated clearly, not with less unambiguous language. So I intend to vote no on this amendment. I also want everyone here to know that the mayor has informed us that he will only support this resolution, concur with this resolution if we watered down the language in that way. I. I do not believe. I do not believe that it is worded for our movement to water it down. His concurrence as word, watering it down. And our movement should be questioning why is the mayor of Seattle only willing to support the resolution on those terms? And why isn't he supporting the resolution at all costs? And I also want to be clear, though, regardless of whether this amendment passes and I think it's going to pass, we should be clear that the main substance of this resolution is what our movement demanded against Keystone XL. It does state, in writing, the city's opposition against Keystone. Opposition to Keystone XL. And that we in the movement will not accept a bank invested in Keystone XL, and that our movement needs to hold the city accountable to act in the spirit of this resolution when the new fees go out.
Speaker 1: Any further comments on the amendment on the floor comes from Johnson.
Speaker 7: You know, I just want to speak to a couple of brief things. I think, you know, as council members, one knows I come out of the environmental movement. I spent a dozen years fighting for public transit in Washington state. Transportation is the number one source of our greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. And so everything we can do to get people out of their cars into public transit is a win for our environment. I started off my volunteer and career as a 12 year old volunteering for Earth Day 20 back in 1990. I fundamentally believe that one of the most pressing issues for us as a city, as a state and as a nation is the threat, real threat of climate change. But I have to balance that and my role and responsibility as a legislator to the 10,000 employees that work here at the city of Seattle and ensure that as we move forward with the important policy statement that we're making today, which is that we don't want to do business with banks that are funding this pipeline, that we actually also have real options for writing those 10,000 employees paychecks every two weeks. And because we don't yet have a municipal banking option and because we don't yet have the state that has given us the authority to work with local credit unions. I feel it is important for us to balance that fiduciary responsibility to our 10,000 employees alongside our commitments to environmental stewardship. So I'll be voting yes for Councilmember Herbold amendment. I don't think that it waters down the resolution. I think we still get the strong point across, and I still think we do our job being fiduciary responsible to those 10,000 employees.
Speaker 1: I will consider worse.
Speaker 2: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank council members who want and.
Speaker 3: We've been working on this on this resolution and the hard work that she put in. And I also want to thank Councilmember Herbold. And just on a more personal note, being enrolled member of the Blackfeet nation, I think I'm the only person in this room that has practiced law and represented tribes.
Speaker 2: For over 30 years.
Speaker 3: In which I sat and was on the banks of the Discord and the Pearl River. I was there when we took over Cascadia for the.
Speaker 2: Tribe, and I was there and we took over for Lawton, and I did all that before I went to college. I also represented the lower elder oil tribe in the removal of the dams.
Speaker 3: I was also chaired and was lead counsel I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Second counsel on.
Speaker 3: U.S. Washington to protect tribes treaty rights and what was now eventually called the bold decision bolt, too.
Speaker 2: So I know a little bit about this.
Speaker 3: I'm supporting Councilmember Herbert's amendment because and I don't believe it waters.
Speaker 2: It down is because I think that we are moving.
Speaker 3: In the right direction and by having this amendment and making sure we do it right. And you all were here when we pushed really hard on the Wells Fargo piece. We haven't let up on that. Our intent is the same. We're moving forward. My goal always is.
Speaker 2: Is that we do it right.
Speaker 3: That we withstand legal scrutiny.
Speaker 2: That we continue to. Look at the laws that we already have.
Speaker 3: In socially responsible banking. And I say this. This is me speaking personally as a native woman, as a Latina, as a mother, a member of a tribe and representing tribes. I think I'm also the only one in this room who has had cases that went up to the United States Supreme Court and that were upheld.
Speaker 2: So I do know what I'm talking about. This does not water it down. It says we are on the right track and.
Speaker 3: We're moving forward. We just can't have that is a person of color. Native people didn't get the right to vote till 1924. We know how to wade into it.
Speaker 2: Right. And that's what I want to do.
Speaker 3: I don't want to feel that because some people here may there's some disagreement that we're anti.
Speaker 2: Anti the environment or we're pro oil or we're all capitalist, industrial, awful people. We're just trying to do it right.
Speaker 3: So it withstands the scrutiny.
Speaker 2: The integrity and reflects the values.
Speaker 3: Of the citizens and the employees of Seattle.
Speaker 2: And that's what we will continue to do. That is why.
Speaker 3: I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales as well.
Speaker 2: That is why we have.
Speaker 3: Called this a welcoming city. That is why we call this a constitutional city, because we want these things to up to be able to withstand the law and anyone else that comes at us. And so for that reason, I'm going to support Councilmember Herbert's amendment right.
Speaker 1: I would make a few comments on the amendment. And as I informed Councilmember Herbold. I wasn't and I'm not supporting her amendment for a few reasons. I do appreciate you bringing the amendment forward and in certainly discussing issues with the mayor to make sure he concurs, to give a lot more meat as we hopefully try to get some national attention on this issue. When I look at the language that of this paragraph that it says, the Seattle City Council does not support doing business with financial institutions that invest in Keystone. And as Councilmember Swan said, at least for me, that's a true statement that when you look at what we say earlier than that, we , the City Council, opposes the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that we are urging federal and state regulatory agencies to reject or revoke permit requests for Trans Canada for the construction of the project. We're coming out sort of hard hitting and I like that and I believe that. And I think if the word city council was not in there and it said the city does not support, it may have different ramifications, but this this one is us. And as I go forward and look at the proposed language, it talked it I think it smartly tries to allow us to align our policies with our charter and our ongoing business practices, our financial policies. But that language to me is a little almost scary when we say that we will. Let me just read it. The city shall seek opportunities to conduct business with institutions that, by their charter and ongoing business practices, seek to benefit the common good. And reason I say that's a little scary is that banks could almost just buy anything by saying that their charter and their business practices are for the common good. In this particular project, on the Keystone project, I think they could say the common good is to compete in a global market with oil and lower practices. And so there's always sort of this common good that I think based on that ambiguity, could pretty much justify the behaviors of lending institutions. I think all of us in this room remember that in 2008 there was a huge bailout in this financial, industrial, financial lending, as huge as about $700 billion. And even Wells Fargo, as an example, received about $25 billion of that bailout. They've actually pay that money back. But since then, there's been trillions of dollars in similar kinds of bailout programs. Wells Fargo has received close to $160 billion of that. And so these lending institutions, very powerful, often rely on government help. And now I think that as we move forward in politics, in the national and local scene, this is the opportunity to do business with those who are trying to advance our social values. And so I think it should be. It. It should be as as hard hitting as possible. I might have said something different 15 years ago or so when I was 20. I was in 2015. But I just believe in terms of activism that if we're going to be totally honest and transparent, that there is a serious grassroots activism happening in this country and they are saying some very profound things. And we look at particular the banking lending institution with the bailouts, with Wells Fargo's example, paying 1.2 billion for some fraudulent practices, that we have an opportunity to see something very strong. So for that, it's just an amendment. For those reasons, I don't support the amendment. So Councilmember Herbold certainly would give you the opportunity to make some closing comments on your amendment. If you choose not to, I'll go ahead and call the vote on the amendment, which, like any words, were good or very good. Okay. It's been moved in second to pass Councilmember Herbert's amendment. All those in favor, please say I and raise your hand. I oppose. Say no and raise your hand. No. Okay. So the amendment passes. The amendment does pass. So 6 to 2. And now we have a an amended piece of legislation. Councilmember Swan, I believe you're the primary sponsor of the resolution. Would you like to say some more words?
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Harrell. Thank you for taking the great stand on the language of the resolution. And also, I think we should all be clear that regardless of that amendment passing, it is still a very strong move for a major city in the United States to take a stand against the Keystone XL pipeline, and that ultimately, even if the stronger language had passed, it does come down to how strongly we build our movement, because we cannot rely on elected officials to break their ties from the oil lobby. And I don't mean necessarily just this body. You know, nationwide, the oil lobby has its tentacles really deep. And so the only way we will actually succeed is to keep building this movement and build it into a fighting militant, nonviolent movement. And I think that we this resolution will be a big step towards that. But we have to keep fighting.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. Any further comments on the resolution? Council Member O'Brien Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council Member Swan, I want to thank you for your work on this. Members of the public specifically 350 Board. Thank you so much for your ongoing passion around ensuring that Seattle continues to be a leader on these fights. The science is clear. We know that most of the known fossil fuels that we've identified need to stay in the ground if we're going to prevent catastrophic climate change. We also heard today from folks who acknowledge that they drove here because that was the choice that we have today. I know that we don't have an affordable city, so a lot of folks have to live far away from city hall. I know we don't have the public transit system that we want to have. We need to reimagine and reinvent our economy so that we do not have to rely on those fossil fuels to be able to thrive so that we don't have to make a choice between do we have a bank? But doing business with a bank that is completely against our values are not being bankable, and we can do that. This resolution today builds on a number of pieces of work that we've done here in Seattle that have helped change the dynamic worldwide. And I know that banks are listening and are aware that the public is scrutinizing their work at a higher level than ever. But it's not going to be reliant just on the major banks of Wall Street to change their ways, because that is not going to get us what we want. We need to find local banks, publicly owned banks, credit unions, nonprofit banks that we can work with and not just banks. We need a whole industry. I want to be here in the near future where folks say, I was able to walk to City Hall to protest because there was affordable housing near City Hall. I was able to ride reliable, affordable public transit from where I choose to live, or I drove here in my 100% electric car, which uses 100% carbon neutral electricity here in the city of Seattle. The work to be done is this resolution today, which, of course I will be supporting, but it's also in the coming months. I've spoken with the folks at the city who are in charge of facilitating our banking decisions. And there's since the Wells Fargo action, I've had a number of meetings with them, including a conversation today. And I can guarantee you that they are under no illusion that we need to find new banking partners. That's not going to be easy to do. As you heard Councilmember Herbold talk through some of the state regulations. But I also believe we absolutely can do it. And we're going to need your partnership in the coming months to do whatever it takes to find business partners, whether it be banks or otherwise, that we can invest all our money in as we move forward that are consistent with our values. Thank you to your leadership, to making us make these decisions. Let's get the rest of the country to follow our steps.
Speaker 1: Any other. Councilmember O'Brien stood up on that one. So we knew that was going to be powerful. Thank you, Kasper. On behalf of my colleagues, like to say any more words before we vote. Okay. Okay. This is very exciting for us. So all those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries, the resolutions dropped and chair will gladly sign it. Thank you.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you. Jackson City Council leader Fran. We appreciate mayor today. Yeah, we are now going to the mayor's office. Ask. He supports fossil fuel divestment. The city's pension fund has raised.
Speaker 1: Please call the next agenda item.
Speaker 4: Agenda item two.
Speaker 2: Because I'm native. That's right. It's my water. You could buy it back for me.
Speaker 0: Your water that we are drinking? Yeah.
Speaker 4: That's about one one 8 to 930 to senior general manager of Seattle Public Utilities.
Speaker 0: You name the price of.
Speaker 4: The Contract with Waste Management of Washington Corporation for Waste Disposal and Transportation Services and many Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends that the full council pass the bill as amended with the Divine Report. Councilmembers Swanson O'Brien favor and Councilmember Harrell opposed.
Speaker 1: We're I'd ask that you take the conversations outside, please. Thank you very much. Well, Councilmember Herbold will give it a minute or two.
Speaker 2: Just more like sat down and did.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We're going to keep going here.
Speaker 2: No knock on doors. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION stating the Seattle City Council’s opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline, and requesting the Department of Finance and Administrative Services to investigate ways to establish contracting criteria to prioritize the City’s goals to avoid contracting with financial institutions that provide it with project-level loans or other financial services. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_04032017_CB 118932 | Speaker 2: No knock on doors.
Speaker 6: All right. Council Bill 11 8931 is the solid waste disposal contract amendment. It would discount the current solid waste disposal rate by $2 per ton in 2017 and 2019 and another $0.50 per ton in 2021 to 50 starting in 2021 based on the proposed discounts. This would result in savings of $8 million from 2017 to 2023. Santa Public Utilities proposes to use the contract savings to support cash financing of the Solid Waste Fund Capital Improvement Program. And importantly, the result would be a reduction in the projected three year average anticipated annual rate increase from 4.4% to 4.1% and a 3/10 of a percentage point difference. The amended contract itself delays by five years. The city's previously negotiated opportunity to end the waste management contract. There are two options available to Espoo as the 2019 opt out date approaches. Option one is to do what has has been done pursue, pursue savings in lieu of opting out of the contract or option to open the contract and develop a request for proposal for garbage disposal services. Espoo has done some market research and determined that Seattle's price and services are competitive or better than most other local agreements. In addition, a significant negotiated discount would put Seattle far ahead of other jurisdictions. The $8 million negotiated discount delivers near and mid-term savings, as mentioned earlier, and maintains essential service, reliability and social and environmentally performance. Social and environmental environmental performance that would not be delivered with a rushed RFP in a constrained market. Let's see what else are high points here, but a lot of speaking points. I don't think I need to go through all of them. The there are significant concerns with with moving forward with a an RFP at this time. I believe Councilmember Johnson has an amendment that would relate to having additional notice for in a situation similar to this. And I'll let him speak to that.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 7: Do we need to have the bill in front of us, sir, before I talk about my amendment?
Speaker 1: It's already in front of us. It came out of committee so it doesn't have to be moved on the dais.
Speaker 7: That sounds good. So Councilmember Herbold is correct. I brought an amendment with me that should be in front of all of you. We're going to call that, I guess, amendment one. There are three elements to this, as we were doing a little bit of research. The law department suggested that we add some language to one of the recitals that clarifies that the savings associated with the city service payments are related to the solid waste fund as opposed to other lines of business that you may be in. But the other two, whereas clauses here relate to the two. I think main issues that have come up in the course of our review of this particular contract, the first of which is the timeliness of getting the contract to us. So one recital effectively asks us to notify the chair of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee, or the appropriate committee should should the committee not have that name the next time around prior to a decision to amend or bid out the long haul waste disposal contract? Then the second recital effectively clarifies that the council would have a preference to an open public procurement process beginning in 2021 as a means of encouraging more competitive bids to benefit the ratepayers. So those two issues that we I think heard a lot about from folks during the process hopefully reiterates the council's intent to really make sure Aspo gets this to us the next time, a little bit more early. And then secondly, asks us for you to commit to a public procurement process in advance of the next contract. So that's my amendment that I brought forward. I'd happy answer any questions that folks might have and would ask for my colleague support.
Speaker 1: So procedural has been moved it's been council member Johnson's amending council bill 118932 by amending the second and third recital and by adding a fourth and fifth recital. Is there a second? Okay. Any more discussion just on the amendment piece? So on the amendment, all those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amendment vote I. I oppose the ayes have it. So now we have an amended bill, and Councilmember Herbold is present at the majority opinion. Do you have any more comments on that? And we'll move back to if you'd like.
Speaker 6: Let's see here a couple of other things. The Seattle Public Utilities Market Review highlighted that significant service problems with other vendors would need to be addressed if service transitioned. Service reliability is fundamental for city garbage to operate effectively and meet regulatory requirements. Waste Management has maintained a record of highly reliable service, especially compared to other vendors and jurisdictions. For example, Seattle Public Utilities suffered no significant interruption and disposal continuity this winter, even during severe winter conditions and ice storms that wiped out rail and highways. However, Snohomish County has had ongoing periods during multiple months of major service gaps, with piles of garbage remaining at county transfer stations. One of the things that was mentioned was the state of the art methane capture system that a another service provider offers. Waste Management's landfill also has a similar system. The company uses the captured gas to generate close to 13 megawatts of green power, which is sold to Seattle City. Light Waste Management is expanding this facility, bringing the capacity to around 20 megawatts of green power.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. I'll present the minority opinion, I guess, since I raised it and likely to be zero for two on amendments today. But that's okay. You get three or four times at bat to get your average up. That was a joke, by the way. Okay. So I made the minority opinion sort of clear that I think one of the worst things that can happen to a legislative body is when a department comes to you, which is sort of like a fait accompli, that we really don't have much of an opportunity to weigh in on policy preferences. And I think you heard testimony that it would be really nice to look at what new technologies out there, what new competitors are out there, how we might be able to keep this this solid waste in the state in a union facility as an example, and produce the methane and look at how this can benefit our state as a whole. And I didn't think we were afforded that opportunity. I in fairness to the utility, I am positive that they negotiated well and in good faith to protect our city and our ratepayers and to accomplish the savings that obviously this legislation has within it. So I don't doubt that at all. However, it would seem to me that based on what I know about procurements, in fact, there's a a think tank, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, that in 2015 reviewed when cities and when municipal municipalities should use procurement process and clearly found that that price alone should not be a driving factor. And they talked about how just because a competitor may be able to to to provide a price that is attractive, there's so many other criteria that should be considered, such as what we just did with our keystone, looking at the values, looking at where what our vision of a city is. And so I just think that our job is to look at all of those possibilities, and I just don't think we were afforded that opportunity. I think Councilmember Johnson's amendment makes that point, and that's why I'm very supportive of that. And again, I just you know, it was sort of flagged to me listening, talking to labor advocates and environmental advocates that we might have missed an opportunity here. So for that reason, I won't be supporting the legislation and life goes on. And I know we're looking very stringently at the utility in its operations, working with the utility and I think we have a great utility, but I think we missed an opportunity here. And so for that reason, again, I will be voting against it. Councilmember So on.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Harrell. I voted yes on this legislation in committee and since then, many members of the labor movement, including the leader of the labor movement in Seattle, King County, Nicole Grande, have brought it to our attention that there were some issues. Council President Harrell went over some of them, so I won't repeat it. But just to quote Larry Brown, the leader of the machinists who said the city, it'll be good for the city to examine other options for long haul waste disposal. And so I will be changing my vote to a no vote. Just one other point I would add is the Republic executives who have been here are vocal against this legislation. We hope that you will support the unionizing effort at your recycling plants.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Swanson. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Customer Horrible. Do you have any closing remarks? Good, everybody. Okay, so we have a bill in front of us in a minute, Bill. So please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Herbold II.
Speaker 2: Johnson Suarez. O'Brien. Hi, Serrano. Burgess.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. Hi, President. Harrell.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Six in favor. Two opposed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The bill passed and Cher will sign it. Okay. Is there any further business to come before the council? I'm sorry, Bearing. Then we stand adjourned and everyone have a great day. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the CEO/General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., for waste disposal and transportation services; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03272017_CB 118932 | Speaker 2: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. And Item one Council. Vote 118 932 Authorizing CEO, General Manager and CEO of Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the Contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. for Waste Disposal and Transportation Services and many Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, changing preparations for Seattle Public Utilities ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report with councilmembers Herbold, Sawant and O'Brien in favor. And Councilmember Harrell opposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So at this point, I'm going to turn it to Councilmember O'Brien, who will substitute for Councilmember Herbert Herbold. Just to forewarn everybody is to be transparent. There's likely Councilmember O'Brien will move for at least a one week hold, and I'll I'll support that. But after he makes the motion and I will second it, we just have some discussion for the public to sort of know what we're doing here. So, Councilmember O'Brien, I'll give you the microphone.
Speaker 5: All right. So because Councilmember Herbold, who chairs this committee, is absent today and summit can't.
Speaker 0: Hear you back. So let's just take a let's just take that deep breath that Charles was telling us for a minute here. And. Well, I think it's getting a little quieter here. Get a little quieter. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think I can hear you now.
Speaker 5: Great. So I don't think it's being closed is going to help much. I will speak as clearly and loudly as I can, because Councilmember Herbold, who chairs this committee, is absent today and some additional concerns were raised during public comment. I would like to move that. We hold council bill 118932 for one week until April 3rd and second.
Speaker 0: That I guess now would be the time. Just have a short discussion. But I'm just asking my colleagues, we heard some public comments. Just look closely at the divided reports. What I said earlier this morning during the briefing was that I had some concerns about how the utility was proceeding, sort of a fait accompli by the time it got to us. And if we believe that in RFP process as a way to to test the market, particularly our contract has been so long standing then has the utility demonstrated that now would be the time not to to to push the market? And in fairness to Councilmember Herbold, they're asking a lot of questions, but I think it would make sense to at least hold it off for a week. We heard some public comment and we could discuss it informally and then we'll see where we are on on a week's vote. So I do support the hold any further comments on the motion to hold? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 8: You know, I would just say I don't serve on the committee. So an opportunity for us to have another week of discussion about this would be helpful from my perspective. You know, when I read through the Divided report, the contract now being open for bids since 1990, I could tell you a joke about what I was doing in 1990, but it involved role playing games and other things that 12 year olds do. So from my perspective, you know, having a chance for us to work with us, for you to better understand the timing of when the next open bid process would look like if it wasn't in 2019 would be helpful. And also to better understand the financial implications, as we have dug into this a little bit, making this decision next week may forfeit some of the perceived savings here for the ratepayers and the $1.2 million identified in the report. And so I want to make sure that we have a good understanding about what that tradeoff would look like, too. So I don't object to holding it for another week, and I think that would give us a chance to get a little better handle the decision.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Johnson. Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I also will support the hold in talking to the department. We may lose a few days value of the reduction in costs, but we will not lose the entire amount. So that's important.
Speaker 5: The comment about, you know, it hasn't been.
Speaker 3: Negotiated for 30 plus years.
Speaker 5: Is an interesting one.
Speaker 3: To me.
Speaker 5: But when this contract.
Speaker 3: Was bid and the respondents to that RFP participated in that process, they knew they were bidding on a 30 plus year contract. So I think it's a bit misleading to imply that there's something wrong with this process or that we didn't follow the rules, or that this is an unusual length for a contract of this type. This was a 33 or 34 year bid with some options given to the city to get out of that contract if the city wanted to.
Speaker 5: And the reason this contract is so long is.
Speaker 3: Because hauling of garbage and arranging of infrastructure for that is extremely expensive and requires significant capital.
Speaker 5: Investment.
Speaker 3: Which requires a long term contract. So I don't I don't buy.
Speaker 5: Into that argument.
Speaker 3: About the fact that this is a.
Speaker 5: Long contract. It was designed to be.
Speaker 3: A long contract. And the companies that participated in that process originally.
Speaker 5: Knew that and competed fairly for that contract.
Speaker 3: Back when it was awarded and I think signed in the spring of 1991.
Speaker 0: So I wasn't going to get into the merits, but I strongly disagree that the option to renew a contract is both legally and practically quite distinct from a 30 year contract that in the course of 30 years, emerging technologies exist, competitors exist. Facts and circumstances exist. So when anyone responds to a contract that has a series of options, which is what that was, that is well within the city's rights to examine each option on its merits, decide whether it makes sense. And just because the successful bidder wanted a 30 year deal is quite distinct from saying it was a 30 year deal at the beginning. In fact, the utility made this point when they put out for bid the recycle contract that they wanted to test the market. So it seemed to me that whenever SPU made the decision to renegotiate with the successful bidder, they should have at least let the council know some time ago so we could look at what other competitors are out there. In fact, a more recent competitors recently come into the market again, offering new technology, new solutions. So it's not misleading to suggest that an option to revisit the original contract is somehow a you know, I'm not saying you're saying it's a bad thing. To me, it's a smart thing to do. In this case, we did not do that at all.
Speaker 4: It's going to come to.
Speaker 0: Okay customer back.
Speaker 4: Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. We're just we're just holding it for a week, by the way. I would probably have the same argument next next week, but go ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Well, since I won't be here with you next week, I would like to ask the department to give us some information on four things. So I chaired the Seattle Public Utilities Committee two years ago, and at that point we went out for bid on recycling. And it was a big deal because we wanted to make sure we were getting the best rates, the best technology. And we also, during the time I was overseeing it, went out for bid for the composting contracts. And we really insisted that it be done in the state of Washington. I felt that was responsible. And also we got better deals for the ratepayers. So here's the questions that I would like for Seattle Public Utilities to come back and provide us with the information this week. First of all, if we are going to be looking at options in the next five years, what can we do between now and then to reduce the amount of garbage that we are creating here in our city? We've done well to promote recycling. I don't know what we have been doing to reduce the amount of garbage that we are sending out of our city. Secondly, I'm interested in the rail transportation contracts. We know that BNSF works for one of the companies and Union Pacific for another. I'd like to know what are our options to negotiate those kind of rail transportation contracts? Also, I would like to know more about the methane capture options both at the Oregon side and in the Golden Dale site, because we know even here in King County, we capture methane and then sell it back. To Puget Sound four for electricity and we get a credit for that. So I'd like to know what are the options? And then lastly, the reason I think that considering another evaluation and going out for bid is even if we don't do it right now, if we if we make the decision to proceed. But to do it as in a very reasonable length of time, because we know that any time we do that, we get the market bring the market to bear and our ratepayers benefit. I think right now the argument is that they've negotiated a 7 to $8 million reprieve over the next couple of years, but there may be more. And I would like to know either now or as they go forward, depending upon what the answers are in the next week, what that can look like, because we definitely want our rate payers to benefit.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Baxter. Yeah, thank you. So all those in favor of holding council bill 1189324 weeks say I oppose the EIS. Have to hold it for one week. Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee. Agenda Item two Resolution 317 39 expressing the city's close commitment to being a more age friendly city under the criteria established by the World Health Organization and the AARP, Network of Age Friendly Communities Committee recommends that the full council adopt the resolution as amended. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE authorizing the CEO/General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., for waste disposal and transportation services; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03272017_Res 31739 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee. Agenda Item two Resolution 317 39 expressing the city's close commitment to being a more age friendly city under the criteria established by the World Health Organization and the AARP, Network of Age Friendly Communities Committee recommends that the full council adopt the resolution as amended.
Speaker 4: Good. Thank you very much for reading that into the record. I want to say thank you to my colleagues for supporting this and supporting me in this work. The age friendly designation for the city of Seattle happened at the end of August, just of 2016, and our mayor had worked with AARP and the World Health Organization so Seattle could be designated an age friendly city. Between that point and now, I will say that not as much has been accomplished as I would like to see. But fortunately, we now have an action plan and this resolution has been drafted. And the mayor just last week announced within the departments what the various departments are going to do. But I do want to acknowledge and say special thanks to Steve Lee from the mayor's office and Catherine Lester from the Human Services Department and our own Lily Ramon, who is now, as of last Saturday, Lily Rau, for the good work that they have done on that to generate these really age friendly goals and success measures. What I'm focused on is department by department, but I'd like to start with Seattle Department of Transportation. I would like to see us really implement an institute across our city, a new sidewalk program, and I should say sidewalk programs, plural. We can learn from other cities, but small things such as maintaining our sidewalks across the city, making a network that connects, having longer walk signals for safe crossing where appropriate, not just for seniors, people with strollers, kids who are learning to ride a scooter, which I mentioned earlier before, or people with disabilities. We really need to be conscious across our city that all of us are going to get there one time or another, so we might as well get going on it right away. So there are eight domains in the World Health Organization's criteria for livability, and it includes affordable housing, better transportation, better connections for neighbors with people who are aging and encouraging different ways for people to live. And that includes our auxiliary dwelling or accessory dwelling units. There are many, many things we can do, but as we're thinking about how do we make this a city where we are using a race and social justice lens? I really want us to include the lens for people who are aging. I think we can do a great thing, a great number of things with a small number of small costs, but make it a dramatic difference for our city. So I know that all of you have heard me say age friendly probably a thousand times in the last four months. But I say thank you, thank you for supporting this resolution. There's a lot we can do and I look forward to doing it with you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer Show.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 0: I was led to believe there could be an amendment she would be proposing by substituting versions three for two. Is that so?
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. These were provisions that Councilmember Harold Harrell I'm sorry, Councilmember Herbold recommended. And they really do focus on unemployed workers. That provides additional occupational training for people who are over 65 and also recognizing that people who are over 65 are either staying in or sometimes rejoining the labor force for whatever reasons that are in their individual lives. So I support Councilmember. Her Bolts recommendations, and they're in two warehouses on page three of the resolution that's in front of us.
Speaker 0: So you moved to substitute version three for version two? Is there a second? All those in favor of substituting version three for version two a please say I. I oppose the ayes have it. So we have a amended resolution. Are you. Would you like to see any more words? Better?
Speaker 4: You know, I think we're I think we're good. I said what I had to say, but I did want to recognize that Alan Lee on central staff has also been very helpful and moving things quickly and responding to the number of amendments that have been coming in. So this started off about two months ago, and I think that we've made some real progress on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further comments? All those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended? Vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the minute resolution is adopted, the chair will sign it. All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Please read the next agenda items. Plural, I guess. Three through five into the record agenda items. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION expressing The City of Seattle’s commitment to being a more age-friendly city under the criteria established by the World Health Organization and the AARP Network of Age-Friendly Communities. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03272017_CF 314331 | Speaker 0: Thank you. Excellent. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments vote i. I. Those opposed vote no. The motion carries and appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee.
Speaker 2: The Report of the Planning Land Use and Zoning Committee Agenda one six Clark 53143314. The amended title application, Zillow Apartments, LLC for a contract reason of a site located at 203 West Republican Street from Neighborhood Commercial three with a 65 foot height limit to neighborhood of commercial three with an 85 foot height limit, the committee recommends the full council grant. The application as conditioned.
Speaker 0: Comes from Johnson.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council President So we have three actions before us to approve the zoning change. The first is a vote on the clerk afterwards grants. The application for the Council bill will need to substitute the executed properties and development agreement and then vote on the Council vote, which amends the municipal code to accept that property use and development agreement. This is the property in Lower Kiernan slash uptown. It's two or three West Republican Street. It changes the zoning from 65 feet to 85 feet. But in reality the project is only at 70 feet, so it's a contract free zone for a five foot change. On the high limit, the project is going to contain 128 residential units, including some live work of on the ground floor and retail space on the ground floor. The applicant is voluntarily complying with the mandatory housing affordability program, which is great, and during our committee's deliberation, they revised their proposal to reflect the direction that the committee was signaling, which was that they changed the number of affordable units to 26. So they eliminated the sort of, quote unquote, double dip between their mandatory housing affordability units and the multifamily tax exemption credit units that they were using. And they also revised the proposal so that the affordable units were representative of the mix of units in the building. So we're getting a really good win on this only extra five feet and a lot of good, affordable units, both on the MJ program and in the MFT program committee recommended passage unanimously. I'm happy to take questions if my colleagues have any.
Speaker 0: Any comments from our colleagues? Having seen then I will. State that those in favor of granting the application as condition please vote i. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries the application is granted as condition and the chair will sign the findings, conclusions and the decision of the City Council. Please read the next agenda item into the record. You can read the shorter title if it's more convenient.
Speaker 2: Agenda Item seven Council Bill 118 934 Relating to land use and Sony amending Chapter 23.3 to 7. Mr. Coda, Page 99. The committee recommends the bill pass. | Clerk File (CF) | Application of Zella Apartments, LLC for a contract rezone of a site located at 203 West Republican St. from Neighborhood Commercial 3 with a 65 foot height limit (NC3 65) to Neighborhood Commercial 3 with an 85 foot height limit (NC3 85) (Project No. 3020961; Type IV) | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03202017_CB 118926 | Speaker 2: Agenda Item two Council Vote 118 926 Relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation authorizing the Superintendent of Parks Recreation to enter into a reciprocal easement agreement with Mercy North in Mercy South, affecting portions of park property at Magnuson Park and adjacent properties authorizing acceptance of reimbursement city incurred costs related to the easement agreement superseding the requirements of Ordinance 118 477, which adopted Initiative 42 for the purposes of this ordinance and modify and confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 0: Councilman Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. These next two items, agenda item two and three. Both relate to housing at Magnuson Park in northeast Seattle. This first piece of legislation will grant a permanent fire emergency access easement in order to comply with the Master Youth Use Permits for this particular project at Building nine in Magnuson Park. There's 148 units of affordable housing that will be constructed here. This building will also include a child care facility and a health health care clinic. Construction is expected to begin in June of this year. Mercy Housing has successfully secured all of the necessary funding for the project, including $12 million from the city's Office of Housing, $12.2 million from the state of Washington, and $2 million from the city's Department of Human Services. Mercy will, based on an independent appraisal, pay $32,000 for the property that's covered by the easement.
Speaker 0: Very much. Any further comments? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President Just want to say a couple of quick words about this project, since it's one of the most common questions that we get in my office. These are the buildings that are just kind of on the back side of Sandpoint way as you go along. Sandpoint up towards the main entrance that runs about a four block stretch between 70th and 74th Avenue Northeast. And they've had big cardboard particleboard over the windows for almost 20 years now. And it's going to be really exciting to have them turn into actual units of housing in addition to the 100 and family, 150 families that'll be there at the Mercy Housing. There's also 160 units across the street, the solid ground apartments that currently exist for those transitioning out of homelessness. These new units that come on line are going to be targeted at workforce housing. So those folks that are making 60% a very immediate income or for a family of four in the city of Seattle, that's about $55,000 a year. So a lot of the folks who are working in our school system as nurses, in our health care system and folks that are generally being priced out of the city are the target folks to be living at these mercy housing at this mercy housing project. In addition to this, we're working really hard on some concurrent infrastructure needs in the neighborhood. There's a pretty good bus line that stops about 6:00 and doesn't run there on the weekends that we're trying to fix. There's some concurrent infrastructure improvements that I'm working with Councilmember Juarez on at the community center that's right there inside the park to come on line as the same time as the housing opens in January of 2019. And then there's also some really important sort of public safety issues street lighting, sidewalks, etc., that we're working on in the park, too. So all of this is to say in a city that is really growing quickly, we are spending a lot of time and energy focused on not only affordable housing but also concurrent infrastructure associated with that affordable housing. I'm really proud to see this project move forward and can't wait to be there when it opens.
Speaker 0: Thank you for those comments. Any further comments that please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien so on I Burgess by President Harrell.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair of the Senate Please read Agenda number three.
Speaker 2: Agenda Agenda Item three cancel 118 927 related to the proposed Marcy Housing Northwest Project for Development of Low Income Housing and Nonresidential Space in Building Nine at Sandpoint near Warren G. Magnuson Park, authorizing the housing director to grant a temporary construction easement and permanent utility and driveway easement over city owned property south of Building Nine to benefit the Building nine property and authorizing related documents and actions. Committee Recommends Vote Passes Amended.
Speaker 0: Customer in Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So in addition to the emergency access easement that was just granted, this legislation grants a temporary construction and then a permanent driveway easement for this project. The Office of Housing determined that these easements were necessary to provide access during construction and then on an ongoing basis thereafter.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further comments? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez I Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brien, Sergeant Burgess, President Harrell eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Bill passed and chair senate please read items four and five together please.
Speaker 2: Agenda times four and five appointments 627 and 628 re appointments of Deb Barker and Kristen Johnson as Members Landmarks Preservation Board for Term two August 14th, 2019. The committee recommends these appointments be confirmed. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Department of Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to enter into a reciprocal easement agreement with Mercy North and Mercy South affecting portions of Park property at Magnuson Park and adjacent property, authorizing acceptance of reimbursed City-incurred costs related to the easement agreement; superseding the requirements of Ordinance 118477, which adopted Initiative 42, for the purposes of this ordinance; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03062017_CB 118620 | Speaker 7: Year could be part of the Park Sale Center Libraries and Waterfront Committee agenda item to Council Vote 118 620 relating to the West Seattle Stadium authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute a 12 year lease, plus an option to extend with the Westfield Sportsmen's Club to operate the Roger Dale rifle training range at the West Stadium Committee recommends the bill passes amended.
Speaker 3: Thank you, councilmember suarez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is an ordinance approving a 12 year lease agreement between the Department of Parks and Recreation and the West Seattle Sportsmen's Club to operate the Roger Dahl rifle range. The Sale Sportsmen's Club will pay rent and be responsible for minor maintenance and operations of the range. They will also provide education, materials on gun safety and will distribute free gun locks, which I think you will get a packet from them with your gun locks and vests. Did you not? No. Just me. Okay. The committee recommends passage of the bill. They will also provide scholarships or specialized training for those interested in competitive events. The committee recommends passage of the bill.
Speaker 3: Any other further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. I would ask for the clerk to call the roll on the passenger. The Black.
Speaker 4: Swan. I beg your pardon. Burgess Gonzalez. Herbold Suarez O'Brian. President Johnson. I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
Speaker 7: Agenda items three through six appointments 591 three 594 re appointments and rebellion those mark f deter Brian D Curry and Donna Moody as Members Data Center Advisory Commission for Term two September 28, 2019. The Committee recommends these appointments be confirmed as members. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the West Seattle Stadium; and authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute a 12-year lease, plus an option to extend, with the West Seattle Sportsmen’s Club to operate the Roger Dahl Rifle Training Range at the West Seattle Stadium. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_03062017_CB 118915 | Speaker 7: To be part of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee and Item seven Council vote 118 915 relating to the City of Seattle's Office of Labor Standards, adding a new section 3.15 .007 to the Seattle Code and then the ordinance 25 to 0 seven, which is applied to 2017 budget changing preparations for the Office of Labor Standards and authorizing cash transfer to support appropriations changes. And establishing a Special Office of Labor Standards up front to guarantee annual funding of the City Sales Office of Labor Standards from the city's existing business license tax revenue. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. This legislation is advanced by council members Herbold, Johnson, Suarez and myself to resolve the discussions around the permanent dedicated funding for the Office of Labor Standards. This legislation creates a sub fund within the General Fund, which will be filled with proceeds from the existing business license tax, commonly referred to as the business and occupation tax. This legislation also requires that the Director of the Office of Labor Standards certify by September 1st of each year the level of funding required to maintain the oil, US enforcement and employ and employer outreach and education activities for the following year. That amount will be come the minimum annual contribution that would be reflected in the Mayor's proposed budget to the City Council for the following year. This compromise legislation is supported by Labor and business organizations in the city and the committee urges its adoption.
Speaker 3: What, if any, of the committee members or co-sponsors would be interested in speaking to the bill? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for working to craft this compromise and allowing me to join him in its support. It's really important to fund education outreach, and it's important for Seattle to lead the way in our and our commitment to do so. Not only are our laws only as good as our enforcement, our enforcement is only as good as our financial commitment to pay for that enforcement enforcement. A recent study in April done by the University of Washington found that 72% of workers, including 91% of immigrant workers, did not know about or just had a vague understanding about their rights under the minimum wage. We now have six different local labor laws and the threat. A loss of federal funding to the city of Seattle's varied departments has has never been more real. So the the need to identify a funding source so that should that should that occur is is incredibly important. And it's not only an important important to to workers here in the city. I think it's important to the the workers movement in the nation. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember. Well snaps from the audience. I'm not seeing any other folks who would like to make testimony. Okay. So let's call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 4: So on. I thank Shawn Burgess Gonzalez I Herbold II whereas O'Brien President Johnson I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Thank you. There are well deserved applause Let's go. Now that concludes our agenda. And last, anyone else has anything they'd like to bring forward. Then I would just like to say thank you for your patience in allowing a rookie to take over today. This wasn't the easiest meeting we've had, but I appreciate you sticking with me through it. That concludes today. We're adjourned. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Rob. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to The City of Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards; adding a new Section 3.15.007 to the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for the Office of Labor Standards and authorizing cash transfers to support appropriations changes; and establishing a special Office of Labor Standards Subfund to guarantee annual funding of The City of Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards from the City’s existing business license tax revenues. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02272017_CB 118919 | Speaker 0: Thank you very much. The motion carries and the resolution will be adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item into the record.
Speaker 6: Three Further Human Services and Public Health Committee Agenda Item two Constable 118 919 Relating to preparations for the Human Services Department and many audience 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget lifting it provides and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Consumer Back show.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. During last fall's budget, we put a proviso and a hold on $125,000 until our Human Services Department created and presented an inflammation implementation plan that was based on recommendations from the North Seattle Human Services Summit, which happened in December. And I want to say thanks again to Councilmember Juarez for leading the charge on this. And in February of this year, Director Katherine Lester of our Human Services Department Prevent presented the results and recommendations from the summit, and that recommends strengthening organizational capacity of human services agencies in the North End, strengthening existing networking infrastructure that allows for sharing of information and resources for the public and support the planning and implementation of the 2017 Connections Conference. And the implementation plan will be on an interactive asset map in the Human Services Department website. We'll have data collected and transparent to the public, and we're going to create the website, or I should say Human Services Department is that will include all the above and lists the resources for North End nonprofits and for the public. So our committee recommends that we lift this proviso and provide 125,000 to the Human Services Department.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Councilmember Juarez.
Speaker 7: Thank you. First of all, we thank my colleagues for working very hard with me on this, and I know you guys give me a hard time about District five in the North End, but I appreciate it. I had a chance to look back and in February of 2016, a year ago, we were discussing, discussing, releasing additional funds to the Human Services Department for the State of the emergency. At that time, I pointed out the continuing deficit of resources for North Sale residents in their communities. I challenged HST to make a greater commitment to geographical parity and to identify gaps in our systems that are leaving people and people in need underserved. I'm happy to say that. HST And the mayor saw that not as a challenge, but as an opportunity. And together we turned that opportunity into the first ever North Seattle Human Service Summit, where providers came together to talk about how we can improve the Human Service Network in North Seattle. During the budget, I was able to, with the support of my colleagues in our community, set aside 125,000 for 2017 and 2018 to make sure that the ideas that came out of the summit had a real chance to become a reality. So here we are today to lift the proviso so that these funds can be put into action. This is a vote I am incredibly proud to make today. I want to thank the providers from North Seattle who put their time and energy to partner with us to make this happen. Jack Weber from Family Works. Catherine Crump from the Meridian Center. Lynn Lively from the literature Seesaws. Elizabeth Dole from Aurora Commons. And I say this right now, Siri, John of from Hunger Intervention, Shaun Foresight from the Seattle Housing Authority, Nancy Long from the 501 Commons. I want to thank the members of HHS, HST and Department of Neighborhoods and the mayor's staff for all their hard work, including Danielle Lafferty, Jane Kline, Karen Coe and Thomas Whitmore. I also want to thank Catherine Lester for her great leadership on this endeavor and her continued commitment to ensuring that all communities have access to the resources they need to stay strong and stable. Lastly, a very big thank you to Steve Lewis and the University District YMCA for taking on the big job of spending these funds to create the long needed asset map so that providers for survivors I'm sorry for providers to improve services connection, connection and delivery of services, and to make it easier for community members to know what's available to them. My goal is to use this new asset map to identify gaps in our service system so that we as a city know what type of investments are needed in the north and our north Seattle, and where they will be currently needed in the future. This is a much needed first step to understanding what a Health Human Services Network looks like for North Seattle and actually putting into practice a new and higher standard of access that this community has so long needed. So, again, thank you. Yes, that was a lot, but I had to get it out.
Speaker 2: I'm just asking for the what the vibration was.
Speaker 7: That was me. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very much. Council members, any further comments about this piece of legislation? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien.
Speaker 1: I so want i. Bagshot Burgess. I. Gonzalez Johnson. Whereas I. President Harrell i. Eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: The bill passed in the Senate. Please read the next agenda item. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Human Services Department; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02212017_CB 118914 | Speaker 5: Agenda item two Constable 118 and 914. Relating to land use and zoning in many sections 23.30 point zero ten Amending Ordinance 125108 Ordinance 125233 and amended the official Land Use Matter page 60, 61, 78 and 79 to rezone areas in the University District.
Speaker 3: Before I turn it over to Counsel Johnson, I just wanted to preliminarily or perhaps even prematurely, thank you for all of the work you've put into this. I'm looking down here like you're on my left. Thank you for this. And I'm going to defer to you to sort of help chair through this this important legislation. Councilmember Johnson, the floor is yours.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So just want to orient my colleagues to a couple of items in front of us. Since we didn't have our council briefing this morning, I thought I would take a couple of minutes just to walk you through the decisions we've got in front of us this afternoon. We have three individual pieces of legislation that we'll be voting on the first of the underlying bill, and that underlying bill has four amendments associated with it. The First Amendment is a finding of fact that's been coordinated with the law department. And we can go into details of folks who like, but it generally recites background and legislative history in the context and the basis for the rezone itself. The second is in town language around the zoning changes being connected to affordable housing requirements. I believe my colleagues, Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Herbold, will want to speak to that amendment itself. The Third Amendment is revisiting an amendment out of committee that was referenced several times during public comment. That is about some zoning changes in the University Heights area of the University District. Nearby the University Arts Community Center, we adopted those zoning changes out of committee. A couple of our colleagues would like us to revisit that decision. And then the fourth issue is around the requirements for mandatory housing affordability. We've got two options here. One advanced by Councilmember O'Brien and one advanced by myself that both get at the similar in Tampa, do it in different ways. So those are the amendments that we'll have in front of us corresponding to the in the underlying legislation. We've got two resolutions that will follow shortly after the legislation itself. One resolution I brought forward, which is a response to a lot of the community concerns that we heard that we can't really address through zoning changes. These issues are things like open space, like child care, like transportation, things that we can't knit into the land use code, but that are critically important investments that we need to see in the community. The second is a resolution that Councilmember Herbold has run for the release of displacement analysis that the city is continuing to do and asking the city to do more on that in that area. So that's sort of an orientation for the issues in front of us. If you like me too, I'm happy to give more context behind each of these, but maybe I'll just pause there before we get into the nitty gritty details of the first piece of legislation. Council President And I'm happy to put the piece of legislation in front of us and recommend the passage of countable 118914 to get the ball rolling.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we have the base legislation moved. And second, are there comments and that would be the time to discuss any amendments.
Speaker 9: So I would like to amend the bill by adding a new townsman, which is described in Amendment One. This is the finding of facts piece that I just referenced. Again, give us a little bit more background about our mandatory housing affordability program, recites some legislative history and describes the context for the reasons.
Speaker 3: Her second on that amendment. Are there any further comments on amendment number one? So it's been moved in second and to amend counts bill 118914. By adding a new section one which basically adds a new exhibit B to the bill entitled Finding a Facts from stating that correctly, all those in favor of that amendment vote i. I opposed. The ayes have it. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: With this Second Amendment, Amendment two, I'm happy to move this, but I think it'd be better served coming from my colleagues who are really the chief architects behind this amendment. And I turn it over to you can't remember her, Bill.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So this amendment, did you move it?
Speaker 9: I did not. But I wanted to give you that opportunity.
Speaker 6: I will move Amendment two, otherwise known as the clawback language. Specifically, the new amendment will add a new section if the imposition of requirements under MSA are determined to be unlawful, to adopt an alternative program or to prevent the continuance of the new zoning and increase development capacity in the absence of substantial affordable housing requirements.
Speaker 9: Second, okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. There's a Second Amendment that was just moved in. Second, that adds a new section to it. Any further comments on the club?
Speaker 6: Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. The amendment itself is an intent statement. We struggled with whether or not we could include language in the bill that would affect a specific outcome without future action. We determined that there was a lot of complexity and a lack of agreement on what that specific outcome would be. But what we did agree on is that we wanted an amendment that would be in response to the community, concerns that we've heard that some some developers might be thinking of suing the city specifically to strike down the mandatory affordability requirements, and there should not be a reward with additional development capacity if that were to occur. And the under the amendment further underscores the very important fact of this policy that under MHC, the additional development capacity we are granting today is inextricably an outcome of these mandatory housing affordability requirements.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council Member Herbal. Any further comments on the Second Amendment hearing that has been moved? And Second Amendment number two, which is a basically a new section two, is described by Councilmember Herbold. All those in favor of amendment number two say I, I opposed. The ayes have it. Councilman Johnson, I'll defer again to.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 9: And I'll pass this one over to Councilmember.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I moved to amend Council Bill 11 8914 Exhibit A by removing the proposed rezoning from the multifamily district between Northeast 50th Street and Northeast 52nd Street from LR three to Mid-rise.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 3: We have a Third Amendment that has been moved in. Second, And are there any further comments? Councilmember Johnson I'm.
Speaker 9: Just going to speak again against this amendment. We had a pretty robust discussion about this in committee and the rationale behind including this section of the city and the zoning changes in front of us is based on a couple of things. One, this consists of a lot of naturally occurring affordable housing, as was outlined in public comment, which means we've got a lot of folks that are seeing year over year rent increases as it is today. We are hearing from a lot of those folks that are being priced out of the city, as was mentioned several times during public comment and with no zoning changes in the neighborhood as it is right now, we're five blocks away from the light rail station that will open in just a couple of years. It's very likely that despite the fact that there's very stable ownership, as has been outlined by several folks in the community of ownership in this neck of the woods, that we will likely see some sort of redevelopment in the neighborhood. It's low. Our analysis shows that it's unlikely that it's going to happen any time soon. But if we do not make any of the zoning changes, what is likely to be redeveloped in the neighborhood is townhouse style development, which is going to result in more sort of single family home ownership, replacing what is currently, as was outlined again during public comment, several sort of family single family homes that have been split up into naturally occurring affordable housing. So based on that analysis, we decided in committee to adopt zoning changes that would allow for slightly taller buildings in this neck of the woods that would not only present the opportunity for if and when development does occur in the neighborhood for us to build more apartment style houses than townhouses. But that also would allow us to increase the amount of funding that we get for affordable housing in the neighborhood because of the zoning changes. So I believe that if if if these if this amendment is adopted, it will end up having a long term negative impact both on our ability to generate more money for affordable housing. And then also if and when development occurs in the neighborhood, it will result in more displacement. So I think that this is just one of those issues where we had some of this discussion in committee. There may be just some philosophical differences about how we guess about what the future of the neighborhood looks like. But I welcome the opportunity for us to talk about it more.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Johnson could be Councilmember Bagshaw.
Speaker 4: Good. Thank you. I want to say thanks, in all seriousness, for the work that you did, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing this forward. And I want to acknowledge, David Bloom for a very great email that you wrote me last week about why this was important to you. And I do want to also say that I'm going to be taking the position that Councilmember Johnson just articulated for a couple of reasons. One is that I do think this naturally occurring affordable housing is not protected over time, that it is going to be purchased. Landlords can raise their rents, they can sell. But I also want to acknowledge that this is really close to our light rail. And the real goal that we've been trying to do is to make this a place where people will be encouraged to build larger units so that we can get more people safely into this particular location . One final note that I appreciate from Sightline Sightlines, an organization that I frequently read, and they just disagreed with us on this and the whole approach. But Dan Bortoli wrote that any new housing development smaller than what the zoning proposes is a 100 year lost opportunity twice over. It's a loss for affordability simply in terms of few new homes to ameliorate Seattle's housing shortage. And it simultaneously compromises our efforts to concentrate new, higher density housing near the district's future high capacity transit. So I really acknowledge that reasonable minds differ on this, and I'm going to be voting against this amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Concerned Berkshire Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I want to make one point before I go into my arguments, and that's the point that the mayor's proposal to the council did actually not include recommending changing the zoning in this area. This was an amendment that was brought forward in committee. Councilmember Johnson is correct. We did debate it. The reason I'm bringing it forward again is because when we had the discussion in committee, I was unaware that if we don't change this area now with today's vote, it will be included for discussion in the city wide up zones. The change will be smaller, but we will still get affordable housing out of that future action of this council and allowing us to do so. Take examining this rezone within the context of the multifamily reasons will allow the Office of Planning and Community Development to study the displacement impacts of of this reason, along with all the citywide reasons as we are requiring them to do under Resolution 31733. Should that resolution pass? One of the concerns that I've had with our displacement analysis that we did for this particular area is it wasn't sufficient to meet our needs for making mitigation strategies. So by taking a pause on this area that was not already included in the mayor's original proposal and studying it as part of the city wide three zones, we can do a more thorough job of doing a displacement risk analysis and identifying mitigating strategies. The the other point that I think is important to make is the reason why people feel like this area is so vulnerable isn't just the the demographics of the people who live in this area, low income people on on Section eight or disabled people or students. But it's also because the location itself is very dense with buildings that are not only affordable to renters, there aren't that many underutilized or vacant lots in the area. This means that increasing the development capacity here may may make redevelopment of existing apartments more likely. It's part of part of what we do in the displacement risk analysis as we look at what other lots are within an area and are might be more likely to have housing developed on it. And when you're looking at an area that has very little underutilized land currently the the apartments that are there currently are more at risk. The only other point I wanted to make is that this is because this did come late. I'm concerned that there's less public awareness of this proposed rezone. And I understand from Reverend Bloom that when he walked the area to do the the sort of video tour that I shared with council members, he talked to many people along the route and nobody knew about the proposal. And so I'm concerned about our ability to. Not only analyze impacts, but also communicate with residents in the area about about our our proposal.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I I'll be supporting Councilmember Herbold amendment to not make zoning changes in this certain neighborhood at this point and instead defer those to part of what we do citywide up zones. I recognize that the work we're doing here is a bit of a balancing act. We're trying to figure out how to create capacity near that light rail investment where we do want to concentrate the growth that's happening in the city next to that billion dollar investment. And also, I think we need to be very cautious about the type in areas where we may cause displacement. Luckily, in the district, a lot of the areas where we're allowing for growth are currently occupied by surface parking lots. So that's a great opportunity to add significant new capacity without displacing any anyone's home or business. And we will be doing plenty of that in the underlying zone regardless of this. When I walk around this neighborhood and look at how it's currently developed, it is a rather densely populated neighborhood already. It's not the form that we would build it in if we were building from scratch today. It's some older apartment buildings. It's single family homes that have converted to apartment buildings are added on to over time. It's an eclectic mix, but it does, I believe, serve the needs at a certain level of affordability without subsidies for the most part in that neighborhood. And I think I think for me at this point in time, concentrating the density and other areas and not this is what I would propose to do moving forward. I want to just acknowledge that, that because most of this housing is not subsidized, there is continual pressure for rents to go up. And as I suspect, folks who live there have felt that. But we also know that older housing stock will continue to lag the newer housing stock in affordability. And so preserving a chunk of that for the moment, I think is a good thing to do.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Catherine and Brian. It further. Any further comments from any of my colleagues, customers?
Speaker 4: What I will be supporting considerable amendment, but I won't repeat the point. She herself and customer O'Brien have made relevant points.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that. Okay. So we have a Third Amendment from Councilmember Herbert that has been second. It was basically removes the proposed rezoning from a certain area that was described in the debate. I'm going to ask that you raise your hand since we have some debate on this and vote accordingly. So it's been moved in second and all those in favor of Amendment three. But I. And raise your hand, please.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: All those oppose. Vote nay and raise your hand, please. Oh. So Amendment three fails.
Speaker 0: When there are.
Speaker 3: Amendment.
Speaker 0: Four voting for you?
Speaker 3: A I believe we have another amendment from Councilmember O'Brien correct.
Speaker 1: So I would like to move the amendment for a to council bill 118914.
Speaker 0: Second, it's.
Speaker 3: Been moved, and second, it comes from Brown. Would you like to explain your amendment?
Speaker 1: I will. I'm going to take a few minutes to walk through this. The the main gist of this amendment is it would increase the affordable housing requirement for the areas with the greatest height increase from a 9% set aside of affordable housing to a 10% set aside for affordable housing. Conversely, if there is a commercial building being built, whether or not there are not apartment units to set aside, folks would be paying an in lieu fee. The this amendment would take that in lieu fee from $20 per square foot to $22.25 per square foot. I want to explain the framework within which I believe we are operating and the principles we're operating based on what's been laid out to us previously and why I think it's appropriate to make that change. As folks may recall, we've we've set a number of frameworks in place over the past two years, starting with a resolution and other areas where we've identified how we want to move forward with requiring mandatory affordable housing for all new development throughout the city of Seattle. The legislation before us today is the very first piece where we will actually implement the mandatory affordable housing requirement in the city. It's something I have to actually remind myself because we've been doing this work for a couple of years and spending a lot of time on it, but we haven't actually required any affordable housing to be built by new developers yet. And hopefully in a moment, regardless of where this goes, we will do that for the first time, which is a great step forward. When we passed the framework, one of the pieces of framework legislation ordinance 12523, three, we anticipated that, that there was a variety of ways in which we will be doing the new the new zoning . I think most folks are familiar with the hollow or grand bargain aspects where we said we are going to broadly do a modest up zone. We talked about it being like a floor of height throughout the city. And when we do that, we will require that all new development contribute to affordable housing in those zones at a 5 to 7% requirement. But we also knew that there were neighborhoods like the University District where we'd be doing zoning changes that are much more significant than that one additional floor. And we anticipated that when we come to those neighborhoods, we will also be looking for, along with a greater capacity, we're adding a greater affordable housing requirement , specifically in the ordinance 125233 and says the Council intends to consider whether to include higher performance and payment amounts subject to statutory limits for those areas where the increase in development capacity would likely would be likely to increase displacement. Risk factors to consider are gray areas that have been identified in the Seattle two 2035 Growth and Equity Analysis Impacts on displacement and opportunity related to Seattle's growth strategy in May 2016 as having a high displacement risk. And B this is the most relevant one here areas where the increase, the increment of increased development capacity is greater than the standard major implementing zone change. In other words, greater than that one floor of height that we were giving everywhere. The department came back to us with a framework that this legislation is largely built around, and the technical terms here have been thrown around a little bit, but I just wanted to describe them for a second . For folks that aren't tracking it closely, they decided to call the the base up up zones that are part of the standard haul up zones, an m level of up zone that would require that 5 to 7% of affordable housing. And then they said beyond that, in certain neighborhoods like the U. District, when we have significantly more zoning capacity, we're adding there would be two additional levels one level called M one and one level called the designation of M2, M one being kind of a medium rate of capacity, we're adding into the highest capacity we're adding. And then there were percentages and dollar amounts assigned to M one and into depending on whether it's a low cost, a middle medium, medium cost or a high cost neighborhood. The University District is a medium cost neighborhood by our current analysis at our current point in time. But when we look at all the zoning changes we've done throughout the district, all of them in this proposal are designated as the M one level. And I feel that that's a mistake. Some of the zoning is certainly a modest increase above the hallway and deserves to be an m one in my mind. But some of the zoning in the. Most extreme goes from a 65 foot height to a 325 320 foot height. When we're making those significant height changes, for me that seems to be the type of radical increase in capacity that should require a significantly highest proportion of affordable housing set aside. In other words, that M2 level of affordable housing requirement. In fact, I'm concerned that this is the first time we're implementing this as we go to other neighborhoods throughout the city. If we say 65 feet to 320 feet does not qualify as an M2 level of affordable housing requirement. Are there really going to be any levels anyplace in the city where we use this level? And I question our ability to do that. So I think it's critically important that we take the opportunity in front of us today. While we're making these significant zoning changes to certain parts of the district, to re designate those as an M2 level of affordable housing requirement and increase that affordable housing requirement to either a 10% set aside or increase it by $2 and 25 excuse me, $2.25 to two a 20 to 25 for folks that are paying in lieu fee. I think that's important because our analysis in the new district has shown that over the next ten years that would generate an additional 45 to 65 units of affordable housing. Modest for sure, in comparison to the need in the city. But for the 65 or 50 families that would occupy that, a significant increase to them. And I think it's also important that we signal when we do significant up zones throughout the city, like the 65 to 320 foot, that there will be a requirement on an ongoing basis that those other zones require the highest level of contribution to affordable housing. My mouth is dry from talking so long. Council President Harris also took a pause and I imagine other folks will have some comments on this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Again, this is an issue that we talked about in committee council president and is being brought back forward again today. I want to speak against the amendment, but in favor of the next issue. We've got, again, a philosophical, I think, differences of opinion here. Councilmember O'Brien, when we adopted that framework that you outlined and the nice opening sort of mandatory housing affordability one on one, we should take that clip and take it on the road. We adopted those. The map associated with it that identified high cost, medium cost and low cost areas. The University District was identified as a medium cost area, and with those medium cost areas, we've got an opportunity to try to capture development as it's coming in now and try to get those development dollars today. First of all, more affordable housing today. And we've got about 30 projects in the pipeline in the neighborhood that are currently going through our zoning process in the university district. That I think would be the kind of project that we would ask developers to contribute today to affordable housing they're not required to. But if we set this target too high, I'm concerned that they won't if we set it too low. I'm concerned that we miss out. I think the Goldilocks approach here of setting it where it is right now is the right approach with the caveat that our program that we adopted last August, the framework requires a review in June of 2018. So a little more than a year from now. And if we didn't get it right, we will know in a year from now whether or not those 30 folks have opted in. We can change it then, but if we set the program too high now, we risk losing out on this opportunity where where we could be capturing affordable housing today. And I just don't believe the risk of having a higher higher limit today outweighs the benefit of getting those affordable units today. So I'm going to encourage my colleagues to vote no on this requirement and ask them to come back around and vote yes on the next one.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. And any further comments? Councilmember Bagshaw, quickly.
Speaker 4: And I want to recognize both Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Johnson for your leadership on this. Every single one of us wants more affordable housing, not just in the district, but across the city. So I want you to know that I really appreciate all the work that you've done with your committee, and also to recognize and to say thank you to all the people that were involved with the Halla negotiations. I personally was not engaged in that, but obviously we were looking for that recommendation that hit the sweet spot, that sweet spot where people will be willing to invest and at the same time, more people get a good place to live and that we will ultimately have more affordable housing. I think there's a disagreement around that precise number that's going to result in the most affordable housing. I appreciate the fact that Councilmember O'Brien is urging us to increase it and it really is slight. I mean, you talk about 9 to 10%, but at the same time, others are saying to us, no, we should dial back the mandates that there are. Numbers that people are saying you should go back to three or 4% to make this work at the university. So personally, I'm I'm thank you for your thank you for your boo's out there, everybody. I want to stick with the deal that was negotiated in the analysis that was arranged initially for us, because I think that is most likely to result in construction. I'm hedging my bets perhaps to stick with the analysis that was conducted by the providers. And I do like Councilmember Johnson's ideas to tie the metrics to rent inflation or for an annual performance review that's going to begin in the summer of 2018. So I'm will be voting against this amendment, but obviously supported wholeheartedly the underlying legislation.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Consumer Impact Shop. Yeah. Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 6: First of all, I want to thank all the council members that worked on this. And I just want to say that it's real important for people to understand that reasonable minds can disagree and it happens all the time.
Speaker 4: It's just a matter.
Speaker 6: Of philosophically how we want to move this issue forward.
Speaker 4: There's no doubt that we need.
Speaker 6: More housing in the city. The greatest demand that is clearly unmet is for low income and affordable housing. The MSA framework is our attempt as a city to create homes and a pool of funding to address that demand. I have received numerous phone phone calls and emails from this about this zoning change and especially about this specific portion of the change. I intend to vote for the option B today. Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Herbold have given me in my office a lot of information over the last few weeks, and I greatly appreciate their dedication to this work. However, Council members Johnson's amendment allows us to do two things. It ensures that these properties can be developed in the short term and contribute to affordable housing needs, while also setting up the process for us to eventually gain even more than the extra $2.25 that is targeted in optioning after the initial evaluation period. We could again, I'm sorry, we can gain an additional $9.75 on top of the current $20 per square foot. I'm also looking forward to voting for the full package today because we need to get this done and we need to move on to other communities. As you know, my district, District five and other neighborhoods are still waiting to have their MSA programs finalized. We have to get this work done before we miss the opportunity to benefit from all the changes that are coming. Investments, particularly in the North End, like the two light rail stations we have coming in in 2021 at Northgate and 130th Street. Again, what I do like about my job is that we can agree to disagree. Some of these are just philosophical changes. We're not just drawing a line in the sand. I'm really looking forward to the data that comes back to us in June, June 2018, because I think from there we can build upon that. And I want to thank again Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Johnson for all their hard work.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Suarez, Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien very ably reviewed the council's framework legislation. I would just like to again echo his question of if we do not apply the principles that we voted for just five months ago to this first make up zone, when will we do it? I'd also like to address the the question of the consistency with the so-called grand bargain. As a legislative body, it's important that we make policy decisions in public and consequently, we cannot be bound by an agreement that was not made in public. Nevertheless. Nevertheless, requiring higher performance and payment amounts in areas receiving the greatest development capacity is in absolutely no way inconsistent with anything in the Grand Bargain passing out. For historical reference, I had to dig a little bit online to find it myself. The sign document that constitutes the grand bargain and the third sentence in the opening preamble is it is understood that during the course of conducting the necessary analysis and drafting of legislation, some of the terms may be modified. The one section where they talk about what the what the actual requirements are. They are referring to low and mid-rise. They say nothing in in section two about high rise. And in the area where they talk about the university, the district, because they recognize that there are some areas that we've already been reviewing up zones separately from MHC requirements. They specifically identify a a proposed percentage, but they also say that in most cases the areas would be incorporated into the already anticipated additional height and set as comparable. So they're leaving open the possibility in the grand bargain itself that there might be areas within the university district that has higher affordability requirements than than what they are proposing here. So I believe that this amendment is completely consistent with with the discussions that occurred during the context of the the grand bargain. The only other point I'd like to make is, again, as it relates specifically to feasibility. Our very own consultant, Rick Jacobus with Cornerstone, has told us that modest requirements that are tailored to local conditions will not likely increase development costs, but instead they will be borne by the sellers of the property in reduced property costs for the developers purchasing the property. The impact of the feasibility of high rise development from increasing the requirements from 9% to 10% or $20 to $22 and a quarter per square foot are minimal as compared to other factors such as land costs, high higher rate, higher labor costs, rising material costs and market demand. And the the whole question of feasibility is it's an it's a calculation that considers land and development costs as compared to likely rents. I believe that the Council decides that this very small increase in affordable housing requirement will make development infeasible. We are really getting the proverbial wool pulled over our eyes because in the feasibility calculation we have not counted the higher rents typically associated with high rise development that, if considered, would improve feasibility forecasts with more rental income for developers of high rise buildings. The bottom line is we want to see high rise development in the university district and we really want these projects to be feasible while at the same time getting the most affordable housing possible. What we decide here isn't just about the additional requirements for the University District. It's about our city wide options as well and what we're going to be doing moving forward and whether or not we're going to be able to meet our targets.
Speaker 4: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just want to make a few comments about the the bigger picture, the context here that I think is critically important in the framework legislation that we adopted going back almost a year ago. For the first time in Seattle's history, the city council said that if you build a commercial building in Seattle or you build multifamily residential housing in Seattle, you must provide affordable housing either in your project or you'll pay into the pool that the city creates to build that affordable housing in the city. That's a remarkable decision that the mayor and the city council made a very positive decision. And and then we we we had this long discussion about, Hala, about the specifics of what that would involve and how we would set the specific set aside percentage or the specific payment in lieu amount by neighborhood. We consulted real estate experts. We hired economists. We had people do modeling. There was all kinds of extensive analysis that was done. And as my colleagues have pointed out, the actual agreement that was entered into that Councilmember Herbal just passed out on page two in the middle, under paragraph H does in fact suggest that there might be, because of varying circumstances, different amounts, which is exactly.
Speaker 0: Why.
Speaker 2: In the you district, in the M one area, we're suggesting that the set aside percentage be 9% and not 5 to 7%, as this document says. So we are making adjustments and we'll continue to make adjustments going forward into the future. Now, on this specific amendment, our central staff analysis shows that if we change the set aside to 10% from 9%, we will produce over a 20 year period. 44 to 65 affordable units. And so I have to ask myself, is a change or an addition if that's if those were all spread equally over that 20 year period , which we know they will not be, but let's assume they would be for this argument that's two or three units a year that we would add in the university district. And is that change worth the potential that this whole enterprise that we've been engaged in for in the district over five years and with Harlow for the last couple of years could fall apart. And I just don't think that risk is worth it. I don't think that's the kind of change that we have any evidence that is justified. So I'm going to oppose this amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Burgess. Any further comments? Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Just just really quickly, I don't have too much more to add. The conversation both in the Pledge Committee and here today is is really covered all of the grounds I am I am continue to be persuaded by Councilmember Johnson's arguments. And I think that your approach in terms of Amendment four BE is a very thoughtful approach that does give us all the opportunity to take a look back after we have additional information in additional data to be able to do a course correction in a timely, relevant manner. And so I appreciate you proposing that as a as an avenue, of course, correction, as we go down this path of trying to evaluate what is the best mechanism by which we can incentivize and increase the amount of affordable housing that is being constructed within our city. So I agree with a lot of the comment that have already been made by a lot of my other by a lot of my colleagues here. I feel like this council, regardless of how you vote on this amendment, is very strongly committed to the creation of affordable housing that is meaningfully affordable for our city. I think what we're what we're debating here and what we ultimately will have a reasonable disagreement upon is is really just a disagreement on the philosophy of how to really address this particular issue. So I really respect the positions that have been described by Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember O'Brien. I see that you approach the issue very thoughtfully, but I continue to be persuaded by Councilmember Johnson's position on this one, and I will also vote no on this amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Counsel. You know, you're supposed to take one bite of a big, juicy Apple amendment.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien actually.
Speaker 1: We're going to be here for a few more minutes. Council President Harold. But I'd like to ask a clarifying question from Councilmember Johnson, and then I'd like to make a few kind of closing points. I know Councilmember Swan also wants to say something so we can do the clarifying question first, if that's okay. Councilmember Johnson, you mentioned a 30 or so projects in the pipeline that you're hoping would opt in. Can you give me in the public some more clarity on like what what you mean by that? Are these projects that are vested to current rules and you're hoping they may permit under the new rules?
Speaker 9: So we've got, according to the Seattle Department of Construction inspections, about 30 projects that are identified in a review pipeline in the new district itself. 13 of those have been issued a master use permit so they can get ready to begin construction, but they haven't begun construction yet. We anticipate that those that are maybe advanced, it may be vested under the current rules which will change, I hope in less than an hour or so may choose to want to opt in to the mandatory program. I've heard from folks mostly in the downtown core, that they're interested in talking to us about opting in. But there are developers in the district that I think would opt in as well. If my concern again is I articulated a committee and I think I articulated today is that I would rather capture affordable housing dollars today at the end of the development cycle than hit pause and wait four or five, ten, 15 years until the next cycle and capture the resources. Then my hope is that if we set the numbers right, we will have folks that are in that permitting process that will come to us and want to opt in to our program and either build affordable housing on site or pay into a fee in lieu of affordable housing. And then we'll be able to leverage those dollars today during this time of affordable crisis. My concern, as I articulated in committee and again today with your amendment, is that we set the price point when at such a high point that we don't have those folks opting in. And we didn't get into the details today like we did in committee about the relationship with incentive zoning and other places in the city where we will do an MTU suffix. I'm happy to get an. Those details, if you like. That's traditionally what we reserve for a committee. Council President Harrell would probably whack me over the head if we got into that level of detail more than we already have here. But generally, I believe that the approach that we set out for an option for B gives us a higher certainty of affordable housing today and leverages the opportunities with those developers today to build as many units today as possible.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien and I recognize customers want.
Speaker 1: To thank you for that clarification. Councilmember Johnson. I now fully understand that there's clearly a difference of opinion here. I want to let folks know we talked about this committee a little bit, but I reiterated, you know, a high rise, high rise construction in the university district, all costs. And we expect that the building cost for a new building is probably around $300 per square foot, including paying into the 9% affordable housing. My amendment would increase that by $2, and $0.25 of the cost for the building would be $302.25 a square foot on a big building. You know, that's that becomes a sizable check, but it's less than 1% of the cost. The risk, I think Councilmember Johnson you're talking about is someone that could currently build a 65 story sorry, 65 foot building under current vested rules and might look at what we're about to do and say, hey, I'm actually interested in doing something much larger and I'm willing to pay for affordable housing to do that. The risk would be someone who's willing to do that at $300 a square foot. But if we were to raise it to $302.25, a square foot would say, nope, I'm just going to stay at 65 feet possible that there's that project that's right on there . And it's you know, I've seen the spreadsheets that could be I think it's highly unlikely that we risk losing that. I think the folks that would not opt in would not opt in regardless and the folks that would opt in would opt in under either scenario. What we do risk, though, is if we follow your path and for be we wait 16 months, those projects are due up to an opt in at a lower level and we don't get those additional units of housing. Modest additions for sure. I mean, we're talking about small on both sides, but I think that's critically important opportunity to get. I'll just make a couple of comments and then I won't ask for another chance of another bite at the Apple Council. President Harrell Councilmember big shot mentioned use the term negotiated if she saw my handwriting on it and said, oh, yeah, you're going to make that point, aren't you? The prices we're talking about, the set aside as we're talking about, were not part of the negotiated grand bargain. These these were specifically designed to say, when we do places like the you districts, we will do that in this public forum to figure out what is the right amount. And you're watching us do that right now. So so I reject any notion that somehow we're going back on some deal that was made. Whether you agree with that deal or not, this was always intended to be an open public process. And when you do larger buildings, larger zoning increases, what is the appropriate amount of affordable housing? So you're seeing that happen in real time. And again, I'll just say the framework that we set out was a framework that said when we add zoning capacity, we will require more affordable housing. The framework, I believe I hear Councilmember Johnson talking about in for BE is a different framework, not one that I'm opposed to. It says that we're don't have to add zoning capacity anymore. When costs go up, we can require additional affordable housing. That's not something that's been called out elsewhere in any of our frameworks. I think there's some challenges about how we would actually do that, which causes me some concern. But if this council wants to say no, we can increase the affordable housing requirement without doing zoning changes. That's a conversation that we can have. We have frankly been have for two years. And we ended up in a place that says, no, we're going to add additional we're going to require the affordable housing when we do the zoning changes. And the idea that we come back a year and a half from now and say things are a little more expensive in this neighborhood and frankly, probably everywhere in the city. And we're going to ratchet up the affordable housing requirement. I don't know that I believe we're going to do that. I hope when we get to discussing the next amendment, we can talk about how we lock us in to do that. But I think it's it's hard for me to believe that we're going to go against the framework we've laid out. So with that, I'll just say I hope that a few of you that have said you're going to be against my amendment have been really compelled by those last statements and decided to come over to my way.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Council members want.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Herrell. I really appreciate the clarifying comments that have been made by both Councilmember O'Brien and Councilmember Herbold. I think they're very accurate and reflect the reality of our city. I wanted to add some general points. I'm supporting this amendment. Just some general points. Given that we've already agreed on the mandatory housing affordability framework. Our job as elected officials, council members should be to take advantage of every ounce of affordability that can be squeezed out of the legal framework that exists. I do want to reiterate for the record that the major device, you know, as it's been so extolled, but in reality, I mean, it was adopted by the grand a so-called grand bargain. But in reality, it is not the best in the universe of options that need to be considered given the massive crisis of affordability and livability in our city. But given that image is what we have in front of us, I think we have to push for every person to percentage of affordability that we can get under the major plan. And that's the basis on which I will support this amendment. I'm not an expert on real estate economics, but I am an economist and I want to speak as one for a moment. Oh, the idea I'm not surprised that developers might be calling council members and saying that if you go from requiring 9% of the set aside to 10%, somehow that's going to that that magic number is going to take away their incentive to build those extra storeys, those extra feet. I, I mean, as an economist, I just don't buy that. But I'm not surprised that they're making that argument. And I don't think responding to that argument is thoughtful or whatever. I mean, it really is just, you know, appeasing big developers. I'll tell you something, it sounds very familiar to me. This argument that developers, big developers are making sounds very familiar to me. It sounds very much like the argument that were made when we were fighting for 15 that somehow if you increased wages by this much, jobs are going to there's going to be job losses. There are no job losses in Seattle because of $15 an hour. It's the same argument that has been made by the wealthy throughout the country. Whenever you talk about taxing the rich, they'll say, well, if you tax the rich, we'll leave the city. There is no evidence that has ever happened. So none of these arguments are borne out by reality. As a matter of fact, whether or not high rise buildings are built, whether or not developers will take advantage of that really depend on macroeconomic factors. If Seattle is going to be a growing city like today, if the population is growing like it is today, if the tech sector is still moving in, and if tech jobs are still going up, then that will compel developers to take advantage of that growth in the city to build high rises. So I as long as those macroeconomic factors are unchanged, I do not think that going from 9 to 10% is somehow going to take away that incentive. As a matter of fact, I think it's extremely important that if that this as being the first back up zone project, that we set the precedent in favor of affordable housing to the extent that we can. And last but not least, I do not look at the whole so-called grand bargain as something sacrosanct. It was an agreement that was reached under pressure because big developers had a seat at the table, you know. So, you know, this is the legislative body. The city council is the body that has been elected by voters. And we have to be accountable to the needs of working people. And with this just burgeoning crisis of affordability, I don't think it is it responsible not to take advantage as much as we can while we can. I also want to add, though, that in addition to the maximum affordability that can be squeezed out of the immediate program, we need to build a movement to bring back the discussion on linkage fees and rent control.
Speaker 3: As we get ready to vote. I just want to say a few things. One is I did hear Councilmember Herbold garner some applause when she said the walls being pulled over our eyes. I would get it, but I would disagree with that. I think that would imply that we are making a decision that is either uninformed or misinformed and someone's pulling over something over our eyes. And I don't know who that person will be, whether it's the executive or the developers or some third party. But but I would disagree with that, because I think that everyone here is passionate about trying to build affordable housing. And that sort of the sad part of this debate is many of many folks have been around for a few decades, are seeing a Seattle change into something that is is less than desirable and they're seeing people priced out. So when I see the Displacement Coalition argue vehemently to keep homes here for people that are poorer or underrepresented or in fixed income that they speak about, they speak passionately about this because they are right. That is what we have to do. For me, this is a very tough decision because it just boils down to math. I mean, I used to as attorneys to draft real estate investment trusts and look at the debt financing arrangements. And and I think it's fully committed to affordable housing, as is anyone else. I would add that the grand bargain was not just accomplished by big corporate developers, but it was very intentional. Have labor at the table and a nonprofit housing developers at the table and under people from underrepresented communities to make sure the council is balanced. I think everyone has the right motives. I just think it's a question of math. And as I read the math, I agreed with council member not only Councilmember Johnson's analysis, but s s s c. S CDI. At some point you got to get rid of all of the politicians and all of the developers, and you have to rely on a third party to give you the numbers as to what's the the maximum way to get affordable housing. And that was a process we actually invested in to get third parties to tell us how far we could push it. But I want to applaud the amendment, the the maker of the amendment, Councilmember O'Brien. And I think it's we're now ready to vote. So I'm going to ask that you vote by once again by hand. And so the amendment that we're describing now is for a by Councilmember O'Brien basically increasing the housing affordability requirements in the core area of the district. If you're in favor of that amendment, vote I in. Raise your hand, please. If you're opposed, vote no and raise your hand, please. No. So the amendment fails. Councilmember Johnson, I believe you have another amendment you like just to entertain.
Speaker 9: Thanks. So, as we discussed Amendment four, I gave a little preview to this amendment. Amendment for B, what amendment four B does is it modifies the way that we collect our residential payment and performance amounts in what we call Seattle Mixed Use Zones. This zoning change creates a new Seattle mixed use zone in the University District, and as Councilmember O'Brien knows, because he's the one who brought this concept forward as part of our framework discussion, when we adopted the Housing Affordability Residential Framework last August, we put in there a tied to a map. And in that map we created three different zones, as we just articulated, low cost zones, medium cause zones and high cost zones. And there are different calculations in each of those zones that results in different amounts. The development in a residential development would pay. This amendment that I brought forward today would require a higher when we get to June of 2018, a review of the cost zones in the city. And if we find that the University District has moved into a higher cost area, it would apply a higher amount to this zone, i.e. 10% of the units are $29.75 per square foot. Again, this approach is trying to be based on data allowing the data to inform us in about a year or so how we've done, whether or not the city has really changed dramatically enough to put the University District in that high cost zone area. And I hope that I'm going to get support from my colleagues today. I think that this approach is consistent with the sort of two step approach that I've taken here. What we're trying to collect as much revenue here at the end of the development cycle as we can for affordable housing that we can build today, while also recognizing that in a year from now, we'll have better data and better analysis. And if that data shows that we, the district, has become a high cost area, we can ask developers in that area to pay more.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Johnson. I'll describe this as Amendment four B and just to make sure where the process is. Right. You did make the motion to amend Council Bill 1189144b, is there a second?
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 3: It's been moved in second. And okay, further comments from my colleagues. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. Councilmember Johnson. I, I will support this amendment. I don't think this amendment is actually mutually exclusive of the one we previously did. We could have moved something to them to, but then also at a later date moved it from medium to high. But I know that failed. But I want to just ask a couple clarifying questions. I think it's highly unlikely that well, it's certainly, I think, near impossible that we will actually have high rise new high rise construction complete in the UK to look at what the actual rents are in the market by June of 2018. There may be some other things that change, but it's unlikely that we'll see significant differences on the ground from new construction that's actually in place. Is your understanding that in addition to June of 18 that this would be annual or every other year kind of process?
Speaker 9: You know, when we set up the framework, we didn't intentionally put in a date beyond June of 2018. There was a desire by all of us in the committee and then a desire by the full council to have that June of 2018 date. We have talked about whether or not that would be an annual biannual or tri annual five year review. Nothing is set in stone. Again, though, I think my objective here is to do analysis based on the facts on the ground. We're just about to, I hope, adopt the first application of our mandatory housing affordability residential program that will give us hopefully a year plus worth of data to analyze. That's not just the new projects that are going to get built after today, but also those projects that we talked about earlier that are currently under development but that might want to opt into the program. Those two data points will allow us to much better determine not only in the university district but in other parts of the city what we think are high cost, medium cost and low cost areas. This approach allows us, again, to maximize as much money for affordable housing today and allow us to really analyze the data a year from now and tweak it if we think that it does.
Speaker 1: I, I appreciate that. I think even the ones that are in the pipeline, if they haven't broken ground today, they won't be getting rents by June of 18. So we won't have new rent data, but maybe we'll have some performance stuff. I mean, it won't be as simple as an economic analysis looking at rents. I would like to at least state my legislative intent here that we do it on a I'd love to have more discussion, but a semi-regular basis. I don't know if every year, every two years is more appropriate. My other question, you mentioned that that if if the costs in the U. District have changed. Is your intent of this would apply? I mean, this is you know, if we go through with this, this will be the only area where we have the mandatory housing affordability activated in the city in a moment. But by this time next year, in theory, we'll have it throughout the city. Is your intent that we would be studying costs throughout the city and anywhere in the city where some neighborhood moves from a low cost to a high cost or low cost to medium customer to high cost that we would make adjustments beyond just the district, but wherever that's appropriate.
Speaker 9: Yes. And that is informed again by the work of the Planning Department. They were the ones who, in conjunction with the U.S. Law Community Collaborative and other advocates, came up with the determination and the numerator, the sort of background numerology behind the designation of high, medium and low cost areas. That framework was something that we supported when we adopted our residential framework in August of last year. So we can go back and take a look at those numbers again in June. And my hope that again, when we adopt the framework discussion next June, that we would take a look at not just the district but the entire city based on those analysis that have already been done by the planning department.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Casper and Brian. Any further comments on Amendment four? BE It's been moved and second amendment four B has been moved in second. And all those in favor of that amendment, vote I, I oppose vote no. The ayes have it. Okay. So according in my record, we have a base piece of legislation that's been amended by Amendment one, two and four B that have passed. And are there any further comments on the amended legislation? I think it's ready to be voted. Any further comments? Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I just want to take the moment to make a few comments about the underlying piece of legislation. For me, I think this is a reflection of where we want to go as a city. We want to be a welcoming city that allows.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 9: People to continue to call Seattle home. We want to be a city that proactively makes investments in affordable housing nearby public transportation, because we recognize that that is important for not only. Do in the household costs of individuals. But it's also one of the best ways for us to get people out of poverty and into the middle class. We want to be a city that protects our air and our water and our trees and our natural environment. That's why we want to make investments in all our buildings nearby, our billion dollar light rail stations. These values around creating good jobs, protecting local businesses, protecting our environment, and creating new housing for people with the framework and driving force. For me, when we pull together the conversations around the University District know I'm a transportation planner by training. I'm a fifth generation Seattle on the Capitol Hill. Then my great grandmother moved to in the late 1800s is very different from the Capitol Hill of today. If that Capitol Hill had remained the same, it would be a lot harder for a lot of folks to call Capitol Hill home. We need to create more places for more people to be able to live in our city. But we also need to recognize that there are challenges associated with that growth. And that's why we made some really significant changes to this legislation in response to not only five years of public comment and nearly 100 meetings, but in one year plus of discussions of the committee. We had eight committee meetings. We had one public hearing out in the University District itself. And in response to that, we made really significant changes, including delaying zoning for small businesses on the AV. We heard from folks that they wanted to do more to designate and preserve landmark structures in the University District. So we amended the legislation to allow people to be able to do that more readily. We created incentives for more family size units in the university district responding to folks who want to continue to live in the neighborhood and raise a family. We require developers to provide more public open space to this plan. We required all new projects to encourage transit use and minimize traffic congestions. We worked hard with local nonprofits like the U. District YMCA and the Temple UMC to better utilize their property to build more affordable housing and to be able to serve deliver their mission by serving more people in their neighborhood. I'm really proud of this work. And it is the first project, the first program to go through a mandatory housing affordability program. So every new development that has built in University District after we passed the zoning change will be required to build affordable housing or plan to a city fund where we leverage additional federal and state dollars to build affordable housing. This is the kind of investment that I hope we'll be able to build on in other parts of the city, to be able to showcase not just in the university district, but all throughout the city, that we are a welcoming city. I want to say thank you to my colleagues on the planning, use and Zoning Committee. This has been a huge undertaking over the last year or so. Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember Herbold, thank you very much for coming along on this journey. I really appreciate the thoughtful approach that you both take to not only this legislation, but to governance in general. I want to say thank you to the Planning Department, Sam Machover ah, director and our just All-Star planner, Dave Clark, who is at, I think each of those 100 community meetings and has made this the heart and soul of his work over the last five years, including giving up lots of time with his wife and young family. I want to say thank you to Ali Banerjee, Annelise Whitson of our council central staff, who spent so much time and energy with myself and my colleagues. And finally, I want to say a big thank you to Amy Gore from my office. She has spent literally hundreds, if not thousands of hours on this project over the last year and a half, not just working with my colleagues, but also out in the community. She has really, really, really been the heart and soul of our team. And I want to say thank you to Amy for all your hard work. So with that, I'm proud to have this legislation in front of us, and I hope my colleagues will support me in voting yes.
Speaker 3: It's from Johnson, Kashmir. And Bagshaw says You only want to 30 seconds so you can get the clock ready for her.
Speaker 4: And so one other investment that I would like to make in this area is around our green streets. And one of the people who commented earlier today talked about this, but I haven't heard is actually use these words. I completely concur that having the higher towers in the university district, making it a place where people can come. But I also want to make sure it's a place where it's pedestrian and bicycle and age friendly. This organization that we've been working with, all the people that have weighed in, have talked about how much value will get by affordable housing. But we also need to have these green connections. So I want to make sure and I think, Councilmember Johnson, you're going to bring this up with the resolutions that we make this really clear. If it were up to me and I could do this today, I would like to make that Northeast 43rd of June for a dedicated Green Street. I would like to see that Green Street extend from Brooklyn to 15th and right on to university campus. Similarly, north south Brooklyn can be a green street, a bicycle greenway protected, so people can use that as part of the spine. So I just want to say that's really important to me that again, we make sure that we've got the park and the green connection as we are building in this.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood thinks those comments customary back off any further closing comments saying that I will move to pass counts bill 118914 as amended. The clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 5: Whereas I.
Speaker 0: O'BRIEN Hi.
Speaker 4: Suzanne, I beg, shall I?
Speaker 5: Burgess Gonzalez Hi, Herbal. Hi. Johnson Hi. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The bill passes as amended and the chair will sign it. And congratulations, Councilmember Johnson, a big body of work that you've accomplished. Please read the next agenda item and you'll have the floor again. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.30.010, 23.45.502, 23.45.510, 23.45.512, 23.45.514, 23.47A.002, 23.47A.009, 23.47A.012, 23.47A.013, 23.48.002, 23.48.005, 23.48.020, 23.48.021, 23.48.025, 23.48.040, 23.48.045, 23.48.055, 23.48.085, 23.48.240, 23.58A.040, 23.58A.042, 23.58B.040, 23.58B.050, 23.58C.030, 23.58C.035, 23.58C.040, 23.58C.050, 23.61.008, 23.61.014, 23.84A.004, 23.84A.025, 23.84A.028, 23.84A.038, 23.84A.042, and 23.84A.048 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); adding new Sections 23.45.509, 23.45.517, 23.47A.017, 23.48.602, 23.48.605, 23.48.610, 23.48.615, 23.48.620, 23.48.621, 23.48.622, 23.48.623, 23.48.624, 23.48.627, 23.48.630, 23.48.635, 23.48.640, 23.48.645, 23.48.646, 23.48.650, 23.48.680, 23.48.685, and 23.48.690 to the SMC; amending Ordinance 125108 and Ordinance 125233; and amending the Official Land Use Map at pages 60, 61, 78, and 79 to rezone areas in the University District. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02212017_Res 31732 | Speaker 5: Agenda item number three, Resolution 317 32 Recognizing the University District Urban Design Framework and identifying next steps in implementing a common vision of an eclectic, affordable and diverse university district.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 9: Thank you. During the course of our discussions around the University District zoning change, we heard from several members of the community about a real interest in lifting up a lot of the infrastructure concurrence that we need in order to make the zoning changes successful. These things include issues like how do we work with our small businesses to help promote economic development in the neighborhood, including a Buy Your Own Build building program, including issues like the low interest loans that the city has been working on as part of the commercial affordability framework, including like the public open space that Councilmember Bagshaw talked about earlier, including things like the University District, Urban Design Framework, childcare issues, public transportation issues. I believe that we're working really closely with sound transit and King County Metro to change the bus route out of the 44 when the light rail station opens to be able to create that pedestrian only zone that we've been working on so hard on 43rd between Brooklyn, so that the busses can stay running on 45th and not have to run down 43rd. It's issues like this that we can't work into the land use code that we wanted to lift up through this corresponding resolution. So this resolution in front of us articulates many of those values and lifts up many of those projects that are not part of the zoning code, but are really necessary in order to make sure that we have a continue to have a vibrant community in the university district. We have a substitute resolution in front of us. That substitute resolution has two changes. The first addresses childcare. The district is one of our largest employment centers. And as somebody who thinks every day about childcare with two six year olds and a three and a half year old, I know how critical the childcare needs in our city are and how unaffordable they've become. We're asking the city departments to work with area employers to identify strategies to support childcare options and bring that work back to us by January of next year. We are also changing historical resources review and the substitute resolution. Our original resolution language results in something from the Department of Neighborhoods that they thought would require $100,000 as part of the analysis. That price tag was larger than what they had included in their budget this year, so the proposed revision would direct the city to review the district as a whole to understand historical resources as opposed to doing a parcel level analysis. So I would like to move substitute version four of Resolution 31732 for version C three and encourage my colleagues to support.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 3: Has been moved. There is a second. We're just going to vote on the amendment right now. So we've had an amendment made by Councilman Johnson to substitute version four for version three. Are there any further comments? Are those in favor of the amendment? Vote I. I oppose vote no. So the amendment has passed. Are there any further comments about the resolution in general? Any further comments on the resolution in general? Okay. Those in favor of adopting the resolution. I'm sorry. Let me let me move it first. I move to adopt the amended resolution 317332. Are there any further comments? They're second those in favor in favor of adopting the resolution as amended. I. I those oppose vote no. The motion carries and the resolution is adopted as amended and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. It should be. Agenda item number four. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION recognizing the University District Urban Design Framework and identifying next steps in implementing a common vision of an eclectic, affordable, and diverse University District. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02212017_Res 31734 | Speaker 3: Please read agenda item number five into the record.
Speaker 5: Agenda item five Resolution 317 34 Adopting statements of Legislative Intent for the 2017 Adopted Budget 2018 Address Budget 2017 through 2022 Adopted Capital Improvement Program.
Speaker 3: As the titled described, this is sort of a formality where we technically adopt the statements of legislative intent that we approve during the budget process and for like a really clear out of room count. So for those that don't understand what a statement of legislative intent does, it's the opportunity for the city council when approving funds or stipulating how funds should be spent. The public funds that they're trying to direct the department are put conditions such that their policy directives are being done so they could be stipulations that could be work being done. And so this is an opportunity for us to formally accept the these slides into our budget and into our legislative process . So having said that, I will move to adopt Resolution 3173 for those in favor of adopting a resolution.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. This doesn't have to be a minute, does it? At all? Okay, so those in favor of adopting a resolution please vote i, i those opposed vote. No, the motion carries. The resolution is adopted on charter will sign it. Please read. Agenda item number six three points. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION adopting Statements of Legislative Intent for the 2017 Adopted Budget, 2018 Endorsed Budget, and 2017-2022 Adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02212017_CB 118916 | Speaker 3: Please read. Agenda item number six three points.
Speaker 5: Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance. Agenda Item six Council Bill 118 916 relating to the financing of affordable housing, authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of 20 to 29 million from the Low Income Housing Fund to the 2018 Multipurpose Alto Bond Fund for bridge financing and to of Affordable Housing Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you, colleagues. You remember that last fall we approved the sale of $29 million in limited tax general obligation bonds to be used for building affordable housing due to the uncertainty of projects and the actual spending needs. The city will likely sell those bonds in 2018. This legislation provides the Office of Housing with bridge financing from our cash pool so that they can proceed with projects before those bonds are actually sold. So what this ordinance does is it gives them appropriation authority to spend $29 million on affordable housing projects. We will then reimburse that loan, that bridge loan, when the bonds are sold in 2018.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess. Any further comments? Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I want to thank both Council Chair Burgess for welcoming this legislation into his committee, as well as the Office of Housing and the City Budget Office for working together to accomplish what is an important policy objective for me is that we will at least be able to try to utilize some of this additional capacity this year. We had a quick timeline coming up for the 2016 sorry, the 2017 bond issuance. We do that once a year. In April, in order to have met that deadline, we would have had to identify projects in early January. And though we tried, we were unable to do so so quickly, which is understandable considering the complexity of low income housing development. And so this as a as a fallback measure to allow us to spend some or all of these funds this year is very appreciated.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilor Member Herbold. Any further comments in that? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 5: Maurice O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Hi. So on, I beg.
Speaker 5: Sharna Burgess. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold Johnson. President Harrell. All right. Now in favor. Favored unopposed.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The bill passed and chair assignment please read agenda item number seven. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the financing of affordable housing; authorizing the loan of funds in the amount of $29,000,000 from the Low-Income Housing Fund to the 2018 Multipurpose LTGO Bond Fund for bridge financing of affordable housing. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02212017_CB 118917 | Speaker 3: Thank you. The bill passed and chair assignment please read agenda item number seven.
Speaker 5: Agenda item number seven Cancel 118 917. Ruling to the city treasurer you're creating a fund for the deposit of 2018 Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Proceeds Committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Council Member Burgess.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is related to the measure we just passed. This sets up the 2018 LG Auto Bond Fund, which then allows us to make the bridge loan so that we can advance the fund sooner than if we were to wait for the sale of the bonds. I would also like to mention here and Councilmember Herbold gets a lot of credit for this. The Office of Housing has agreed in 2017 to have at least two and maybe a third opportunity for low income housing providers to pitch the city on projects rather than just one annual offering. We're going to do it a couple of times, maybe three times during the year.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 5: Or as I. O'BRIEN So on. Bagshaw Burgess High. Gonzalez Herbold Johnson President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill Parsons Show Assignment Please read items eight and nine together please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Treasury; creating a fund for the deposit of 2018 limited tax general obligation bond proceeds. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02212017_CB 118903 | Speaker 5: Three for the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee and Item 11 Council Bill 118903 Relating to Seattle Public Utilities repealing Section five of Ordinance 125111 and amending Section 21.70 6.0 42. For code to correct a technical technical error committee recommend Civil Pass Custom Herbold.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This ordinance fixes a technical error made in the solid waste rate ordinance passed by the Council in September 2016. There is related to the rate credit table in the Solid Waste Ordinance, codifying solid waste discounts for utility discount program customers paying for solid waste service indirectly through rent. The discard discount table should have been updated to reflect revised credits passed in the utility discount program auto enrollment legislation. We have learned that due to the concurrent drafting schedules for the utility discount program, auto enrollment legislation and a solid waste rate legislation, this table did not get updated, but despite that, no customers missed a rate credit because of this technical error, because the changes themselves don't occur until April 1st, 2017. ESP will present the phasing issue at the table in my committee tomorrow. And in the meantime you have questions about the ordinance or its impacts. You can contact me.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Kassim Herbold. Any further comments? Please call the role on the pastor of the Bill Press.
Speaker 5: I. O'BRIEN All right. So what.
Speaker 4: I beg Sean.
Speaker 5: Burgess. Gonzalez Purple Johnson President Harrell nine in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 3: Bill passes in the chair of the Senate please read. Agenda item number.
Speaker 5: 12 Gender Item 12 Appointment 565. Appointment to Chair Cookson as member of Seattle Women's Commission for Term two July 1st, 2017. The committee recommends the appointment affirmed as memorable. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; repealing Section 5 of Ordinance 125111 and amending Section 21.76.040 of the Seattle Municipal Code to correct a technical error. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02132017_CB 118909 | Speaker 4: To cancel 118909 related to fees and charges for permits and activities of the department. Construction Inspections Amending Section 2.900 80.0 ten of the Seattle Times Book Code concerning Johnson.
Speaker 2: In our budget process last year, we incorrectly used a hourly rate of $345 instead of $315 for some elements of our land use code review, specifically Tables c-1.8.2 and c-1.8. ten. This bill corrects that error and uses the intended fee of $315 to the tables.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much and thanks for explaining that during the briefing this morning. Are there any further comments? I will move to pass counter bill 118909.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved to second with the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 2: JOHNSON Hi.
Speaker 1: O'Brien Sergeant Bagshaw. Burgess, I. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi, President Harrell. Hi. Eight in favor.
Speaker 0: Nine opposed the bill passed in show sign. And is there any further business coming before the council hearing? Then we stand and Jordan and everyone have a great day. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE related to fees and charges for permits and activities of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections; amending Section 22.900C.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02072017_CB 118905 | Speaker 2: Three Part of the Affordable Housing.
Speaker 8: Neighborhoods and Finance Committee agenda item one Constable 118905 relating to strengthening the city of sales policies for conducting business with partners that are committed to fair business practices. The Committee recommends the bill pass and agenda item two Quick File 314 368 Documents relating to Wells Fargo Bank Social Responsibility and Fair Business Practices. The committee recommends the file be placed on file.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 9: Thank you. This legislation relates to social responsibility and fair business practices. It builds on several years of work by the Council and the mayor to strengthen our contracting procedures. There are two major sections to this legislation one dealing with ethical business practices and the other dealing with environmental protections, specifically the Dakota Access pipeline. Councilmember Juarez will address the environmental issues and other things in her comments. This bill that we have before US Council Bill 118905 builds on Councilmember Silence Original proposal, but it differs in several ways. First, it broadens the scope of the social responsibility and fair business practices to cover all city contracts, not just banking contracts. It broadens the debarment standards for companies that may be considering bidding on city contracts. It expresses the council's intent to the mayor and the director of our finance and administrative services that they give immediate notice to Wells Fargo of the city's intention not to renew the existing banking service contract and to prohibit investments in Wells Fargo securities for a period of up to three years. Finally, it includes specific findings of fact regarding unethical practices that Wells Fargo has engaged in as established by governmental entities. I think this last fall we were all aware of the news accounts about Wells Fargo establishing false credit card and banking accounts. As a result of that. In September, Wells Fargo admitted these violations with the federal comptroller of the Currency and paid a $35 million fine. They acknowledged these unethical practices with the city and county of Los Angeles and paid a $50 million fine. They acknowledged these unfair business practices with the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and paid a $100 million fine. However, as we were working on this ordinance, we also discovered in 2016, in the month of September, Wells Fargo also paid a $20 million fine to the Federal Comptroller of the Currency for failing to honor veteran mortgage interest cap rates. Veterans receive a special benefit in mortgage interest caps, and Wells Fargo was exceeding this cap. In April of 2016 entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to pay $1.2 billion in fines for improperly claiming FHA mortgage insurance benefits. A total of $1.4 billion in 2016 because of inappropriate business practices. Those items that I just referred to are part of the Clarke file, which becomes part of our permanent record, which are filed to support the findings and the conclusions of this ordinance. This was considered in committee last week and unanimously recommended for adoption by the full council. I understand that council members Gonzales and Herbold have additional amendments today. I support those amendments, and with their adoption, I then recommend the passage of this legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Will. Will the council members talk about the substantive bill? We may have some comments. We have some amendments we have to work through as well. So, Councilman Morris, you have the floor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President. Thank you all for being here today. I first want to thank all my native brothers and sisters who are here. There's a lot of friends and sisters and brothers and aunties in the audience, as well as some of my former colleagues from my legal service days. I also want to thank Rachel from Mocha Shoot to Amish. We're all very honored to receive your gift. I know that when you give cedar and when you give water and when you give a right from a sacred river, what that means to even to our people of the Blackfeet nation. I also want to thank Matt and Pamela and Molly and the others. Very honored that you gave us that song. Thank you very much. I'm hoping that my colleagues understand what that means. It is a very big deal in Indian Country. With that, I have some comments to make about Council Bill 118905. Fair business practice ordinance in particular. There's one section A page four, line 1 to 8 that I want to read. And I don't want to talk about what this bill means, not just legally, not just financially, but what it means morally, the fair and responsible business practices just to avoid conducting city business with partners that engage in criminal or systematic, deceptive, fraudulent or abusive business practices. This counsel bill strengthens and expands not only our current socially responsible banking law that Cmu's Bill Code 2046, but in addition, our investment policies, namely Section four regarding how we invest our money. Today we were both strengthened and expand upon our current laws. We will reach beyond just banking partnerships and include all city contracts. Council Bill 118905 will become proactive in the RFP process by advising all potential vendors business partners. What we require in socially responsible commercial relationships is what we will demand. This Council bill acts as a deterrent to potential bad actors and is somewhat punitive in nature by by providing concrete remedies for addressing past and current unfair business practices. In short, we have addressed a perennial social justice issue head on by looking forward and backward to develop a process to divest, terminate, or economically punish those that engage in acts that violate or inconsistent with the views and policies of our great city. This is not radical and this is not new. In fact, Seattle has a long and proud history a place in our social policy values above the pursuit of pure profits. Our current city investment policy clearly states a city social policy will take precedence over furthering the city's financial objections when expressly authorized by city council ordinance or resolution , except where otherwise provided by law or trust principles. Imagine its investments. The city shall seek opportunities to get business with institutions by their nature, by their charter. I'm sorry. Seek to benefit the common good. And do not solely pursue maximum profit. That's our investment policies. Page four I'm sorry. Policy number four. Page two. The city has always made it clear that our values are morals. Our humanity and compassionate sensibilities have always influenced and dictated our City Council actions. Whatever harms the common good, whatever is deemed an unfair business practice or whatever offends our sense of justice and accountability will not be tolerated upon review of our investment policies and subsequent laws. From 2001 today I offer a brief and legal historical review of such resolutions and laws. Don't worry, I won't go on and on. As a lawyer, I'll be very brief. In November of 2011, City Council passed Resolution 31337 to protect the peaceful and lawful exercise of the First Amendment rights of Occupy Seattle and others. A subsequent review of our investment policies took place and it was stated the city will review its banking and investment policies and practices to ensure that public funds are invested in responsible financial institutions that support our community. This was in November 2011. The city may also consider future legislation to promote responsible banking and provide an incentive for banking institutions to invest more in our city, particularly with regard to stabilizing the housing market and supporting the creation of new businesses. This review should include evaluating policies on responsible, depositing and management of city funds. Other sections go on to discuss home foreclosures, lending, banking practices, and address economic inequality and wealth disparities by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender. In December of 2012, as my sister Pam shared, City Council passed Resolution 31420 proclaiming Seattle as a human right city . And some of you may wonder, what does that have to do with today? It has to do with this. It is our commitment to human rights, as stated, to constitute an important framework of human rights principles for cities to strengthen and improve the impact of laws and policies on local communities, as well as provide a model for municipal governments to translate and implement universal human rights principles at the local level. And today that is water. On August 2013, Wells Fargo was selected to the city's RFP process and in compliance with the then current socially responsible banking law and the city's investment policies. In June 2014, Council passed Resolution 31525, a decision to divest from fossil fuels. More recently, in August 2016, Council passed Resolution 31709 proclaiming our support for the Standing Rock Sioux Nation's opposition to the construction, the Dakota Access Pipeline. Again, we have a long history of recognizing social injustice and taking political and legal action at a municipal level to combat such actions inconsistent with our values and way of life. Be it human rights, civil rights, the environment and economic disparity. We have always accepted the challenge to do the right thing. We as a city have many tools to fight unfair business practices discrimination, illegality, inequality and social injustice. Divestment, termination of contracts and debarment are a few of them. And that's what we're discussing today in this bill. Our goal, our intent was to divest from Wells Fargo. That was never a question. The question was how being mindful of the law, trust principles and contract termination and penalties. We do have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the city's treasury. This process began in early October, October 2016, when our Mayor, Ed Murray, City Council President Bruce Harrell and Councilmember Tim Burgess sent a letter of intent, most more notably to terminate a $100 million bond financing deal regarding Seattle City Light. Our city did that with the stroke of a pen. People say money talks. We say, No, it doesn't. We do. People also say that knowledge is power. But in the words of Vine Deloria Jr, a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation, a famous theologian, attorney, historian, author and activist. We learned I learned that knowledge is not power. Morality is. You may remember Vine Deloria, Dr. Deloria from Custer died for your sins and God is red. He was a former professor of mind and a mentor of mine, and I learned much from him. In conclusion, on a personal note, as a native woman, a mother, a tribal member, an attorney who has lived and fought for all these principles in my personal and professional life, I am proud of my city today. Recently, this past month, my tried to Blackfeet Nation is celebrating a major victory that 130,000 acre badger to Madison area in western Montana is now free of any oil and gas leases. The final. Thank you so much. That means a lot to me. The final two oil and gas leases were canceled. This took our people almost 30 years to achieve. We are one step closer to preserving our sacred land, dating back over 10,000 years to medicine originally meant on our river that there were two medicine lodges. And then now, as we call it now, is called to Medicine River, which the river for the water flows from Chief Mountain, which is the most sacred area in my reservation and where my Indian name comes from, not to you. Misty Starkey, Holy Mountain Woman We can now preserve and honor our land without the prospect of future energy development. No small feat. We will continue to support the efforts of our brothers and sisters of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation and pray they too will regain control over their sacred land and be left in peace now and for many generations to follow. We are here today because we fought for our treaty rights, sovereignty, civil rights, the environment and economic justice. And we will continue as native people. We know how to wait. We know how to be patient, but to fight, we work hard and we work together. But more importantly, we're good to each other and we pray. I get it. This council gets it, Seattle gets it. I want to thank Councilmember Burgess, who drafted this bill and asked for my assistance and asked me to be a co-sponsor. We spent many hours making sure that we did it right. I also want to thank my council members, Herbold, SWAT and Gonzales for making this a better bill. I would like to say today that I'm very proud of my colleagues. We've all work together to make this a better bill, and I'll be voting yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So at this point I'd like to work through the amendments and then we can have an amended piece of legislation we can either talk about or vote on. So. Councilmember Gonzalez, I going to refer to your First Amendment as Amendment A, and would you like to walk us through that amendment?
Speaker 2: And B Yeah, I have to. I have two amendments Amendment A and Amendment B, an amendment A is simply just cleaning up some language related to how we define unfair business practices. During last week's committee, I had posed the question as to whether or not the Washington Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RC W defined the terms that appear on lines eight through nine and had received an indication from Councilmember Salon at that point that it was her belief that it did. However, I went back, given my lawyer Spidey senses, I went back and read and actually read 19.86 RTW and confirmed that those terms are not defined in that particular chapter of the RTW. So have worked with a lot of Parliament to come up with this language which simply just says that we can look at all Washington and all federal consumer protection laws to define the terms discriminatory, deceptive, fraudulent or abusive in the context of how we will evaluate what an unfair business practices. So this is largely a technical amendment to make sure that we're referring to the right definitional context for these terms.
Speaker 0: Did you describe A and B or just A?
Speaker 2: I just described.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go ahead and describe. And then we could just vote on them sequentially. If there's any other conversations about a a only comes first one.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Herrell. This is an excellent technical amendment that Dan Ito from central chair of thanks to him, recommended to my office, and Councilmember Gonzalez his office to remove the reference to the RTW that existed in the previous version in the definition of unfair business practices. The amended definition instead rests on all the relevant state and federal definitions, which is more consistent with how it has been written. So it makes the definition clearer than it was before. Thanks to Dan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Swan. Any other comments on just Amendment A? So why don't we? Why don't you describe to us Amendment B as well and we'll just vote on them sequentially?
Speaker 2: Sure. Amendment B is related to original recitals, five and six. Those recitals referred to issues related to the number of employees that were terminated by Wells Fargo after the reports of their fraudulent consumer practices came to light. That was recital number five. Recital number six. Original recital number six refers to and documents the type of investments that Wells Fargo makes primarily in the private prison complex industry. So there were council members at the time on last Wednesday's committee hearing who had concerns about citing to news media reports about those particular facts. So I was challenged to find other sources. I believe I have risen to that challenge and that I have cited to the clerk file, which includes a consent order that says exactly the same thing that I think council members wanted to communicate via herder recitals, number five and number six. So I am putting those before the full council today for adoption. And again, it, I believe, meets the the value that I believe council members wants original recitals intended to to convey, which is that there were there was behavior by Wells Fargo related to opening potentially fraudulent accounts and that it was their line employees who suffered the brunt of of of terminations as a result of that, rather than their high up CEOs, etc.. And it also encapsulates information related to how Wells Fargo invest heavily. And it provides a lot of debt financing to immigration detention centers like the Northwest Detention Center.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Any comments on Amendment B?
Speaker 1: I just want to say thank you very much, Councilmember Gonzales, for doing that homework. And I appreciate your spidey sense.
Speaker 2: It's a lot more words, and I appreciate that it's a lot more words than it was originally, but there was a lot to be said.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Swan.
Speaker 3: Thank you. President Harrell Of course supporting all the amendments, but just and also I feel that the passage of this legislation is the most important thing and that's what's under paramount consideration. And I and I want to speak to that later, but just in the interests of the activists who have been part of the movement, just to clarify some things here, none of these amendments were completely necessary. As I had said in the committee before, all my amendments, which actually all passed, were all vetted through the law department. And also just because of, you know, we wanted to satisfy our own curiosity. My staff and I did a quick five minute search today of previous legislation passed by the city council and found that media are regularly cited in Seattle's various clauses and have three examples here. One is a resolution council passed unanimously that I put forward last summer, citing Open Secret or the New York Times and The Washington Post . Another is a resolution from Councilmember O'Brien that we passed, citing the Wall Street Journal and the Business Insurance magazine. And last and a resolution, Councilmember Bagshaw citing The Washington Post. And and I think that aside from the point that this is a regular feature of our work and that there was nothing unique about this, I think that it's also should be noted that when there are issues of social justice that pit the movement against the powers that be, often the movement respond to it. We don't have credible sources because the establishment does not allow documenting of those things. I mean, look how long it took for the Dakota Access Pipeline movement to get this it incredible. You know what is considered credible media and government publications would not have spoken to such events often. And so I just wanted to say that in terms of being common practice for the city council and also the fact that movements have to rely on their own efforts and their own sources, often that I think the original amendment were also fine, but I'll also support these ones.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Schweikert. So unless I have any further comments on amendment a amendment, be prepared to vote for those amendments. So I will move. I'll move. Councilmember Gonzalez's amendment. But I'll just vocalize it. And since I'm presiding right now, I'll move Amendment eight, which is Councilmember Gonzales amendment to amend Council Bill 118905 by substituting Section two . Is she provided in the attachment? Zero. Second.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: All those in favor of a minute a vote I. I oppose. The ayes have it now move to amend amendment B which is Councilwoman Gonzales is amendment to council bill 118905. By substituting the fifth and sixth recitals as she provided in the attachment their second. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. So we have an amendment piece with A and B and Councilmember Herbold. I believe you have an amendment C I'd like to propose.
Speaker 2: I do. Thank you. At the committee meeting last week, there was an interest in like in the previous amendment discussed. There is interest in identifying more primary sources. And I think even though the council has in resolutions in the past relied on media reports or the reports of advocacy organizations, I do think that in those instances, when you can find the primary sources, it does strengthen the bill. And I want to give a shout out to Hugh McMillan with with one such advocacy organization and the work that he did with my office in identifying what some of the primary sources are. We also the other the other big concern from last week was the desire to make sure that the citations that we were including were timely, the most recent filings. And so whereas one of the things that we sacrifice in getting more precise is the pettiness of our recitals. I think, again, that that sacrifice is making this recital much stronger. And in in summary, clarifies that the Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding Wells Fargo support for the companies involved in the Dakota Access pipeline includes 347 million in credit facility commitments. In other words, available credit. They serve as an administrative agent for an additional $3.75 billion line of credit, one of the three main large lines of credit. They underwrite bonds. They underwrote bonds for 450 million in 2015 and 72 million just on January 11th of this year. Also notes that this has been done, that this that that all of this has been done in support of the Dakota Access pipeline as the project, as we know, has been opposed by nearly 200 Indian nations and environmental organizations, and also make sure that we get on the public record the police response to that opposition, including targeting project opponents and journalists with arrest, use of rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray and fire hoses in freezing weather. And this is particularly, I think, relevant right now as we've heard that that in response to the president's executive order, the Army Corps of Engineers today issued a notification of intent to terminate the environmental impact statement process for the pipeline. They intend to issue an easement for 30 years, and they've announced that the Army Corps could waive its policy of waiting 14 days after congressional ratification. And they say the Corps intends to execute this easement no earlier than 24 hours following delivery of this letter. We got this information from from who at Food and Water Watch this afternoon. And it it really moves me to think of the people who are hundreds of miles away from us today, waiting in the cold.
Speaker 1: For our.
Speaker 2: Vote. I'm incredibly moved just to imagine the people who this means so much to.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Horrible Councilmember. Are there any further comments on Council on the Herbold amendment? Councilmember, whereas.
Speaker 1: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank council members who want for the amendments that she made. And I want to thank Councilmember Herbert and Gonzalez for going back and look at the primary sources. And since I was originally the one that raised this concern, the concern was this I would rather have the primary source. Conclusions of law based on facts. I want this to be the gold standard across this country, where other cities will look at this and say, this is what we looked at ten documents, eight of them being from courts, finding factual findings and conclusions of law. What Wells Fargo did and also primary sources that they have invested in this pipeline and of course, invested in private prisons. That was my only concern. My concern wasn't that. I just I'm not comfortable with an editorial or an opinion, but I do want to support and I do understand Councilmember Sawant in the issues that she raised . So that is why I kind of, as you saw, was making clear that in order to make this powerful and forceful and robust and really speak to the facts of the situation that I wanted primary sources in making sure that we had the actual definitions correct. So again, I want to thank Councilmember Swan for bringing these issues up and I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Gonzales for following up and making sure that we nailed it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Whereas so is there more discussion on Amendment C? So I'm going to move this in then I have a few remarks I'd like to make for Councilmember Herbold. I will move to amend Counts Bill 118905 by submitting the eighth recital as provided in Amendment C by virtue of Councilmember Herbold amendment. Is there a second? All those in favor of amendment C, but I. I oppose the ayes have it. Okay. We have three amendments. Yeah. So we have a little dilemma. Just bear with me. Councilmember Herbold has to be at a pressing matter, and we want to hear her words as well if she wants to participate.
Speaker 2: I don't need. I was just I want to participate in the vote. I don't I don't have any further words.
Speaker 0: So. So we we know that we're going to pass this. And so this may be a little unique to do, but what I may do is move it. Vote it. Mm hmm. Excuse. COUNCILMEMBER Then we will. As we say, this is my reference as speechifying after we vote. Okay, this is it. Is everyone fine with that? And so we're going to move it, vote it, and then we will have comments after. So. I will move. Actually, it's already been a minute. I just have to call the role, so please call the role on the passage of the amended bill. I say that correctly. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: Herbold, I. Johnson Suarez, I. O'Brien Hi, Sergeant Major Burgess. Hi. Gonzales. Hi.
Speaker 0: President Harrell. Hi.
Speaker 2: Nine in favor. Nine opposed.
Speaker 0: To the bill.
Speaker 6: Passing the same. Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Speaker 4: Whoa.
Speaker 0: Since we're doing things a little orthodox, why don't we? Caspian Burgess why don't you take us through the issue on the clerk file? We'll move to file that and then we'll have some discussion. So it's already been read into the record.
Speaker 9: That's. Oh. At the request of Councilmember Herbold. If there's no objection and an additional supplemental document will be added, the clerk filed 314368 entitled, quote, Department of Justice, Wells Fargo, Improper Mortgage Lending Practices, Stipulation and Settlement, close quote.
Speaker 0: Okay. And just so it's sort of clear, what we're doing is we don't have to formally amend the clerk file, but we are adding a document to it, and that will be what we will move to. And so I don't think there's any objection on that. So those in favor of filing clerk filed 314368. Please vote i i those opposed vote no. So the motion carries the clerk five is placed on file in particular with that additional attachment. So now let's go back to our underlying bill and we're going to lose about half of our audience. But that's but that's quite okay. This is a remarkable piece of legislation. Councilmember Johnson, would you like to share some thoughts?
Speaker 4: Just briefly, council president, I want to say how great this has been. It's been wonderful to see such a multi-generational effort. I was at a six year old birthday party getting lobbied by kindergartners about this topic. Leisel Jones at the Farmers Market. I've been lobbied by a great grandmothers who talk about how important this is. It's important to me personally, as an 11 year old, I was an organizer with Earth Day 20 here in the Seattle area. I spent 12 years working for an environmental organization here in town and was really reflecting yesterday about how incredible was to have a snow day here and yet also feeling very sad, recognizing that we are now in the third year in a row of the highest temperature globally on record and concerned that this may be one of the few times that my kids will ever have that kind of a snow day here in our city, which is really disturbing for somebody who grew up here. So just want to say how proud I am of the national opportunity here to build on the successes of this adopted ordinance and really, really proud that it started here.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. The floor is open for comments on the accounts bill we just passed. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 9: Q I want to thank everyone here for all of your work and for giving us the opportunity to vote for this. I'm really proud to stand with the eight other council members here. We did. Today was a great step forward in towards removing Wells Fargo and their the practices that we don't support, including their investments in Dakota Access Pipeline, other pipelines, which is a great step. We need to continue that and actually replace them with a bank that shares our values. And one of the best ways to do that is if we can have the state government authorize a state bank. There was supposed to be a public hearing this morning down in Olympia on the Senate bill that would create the state bank because of the weather that was postponed. It's actually going to be Thursday morning now at 8 a.m.. So if any of you or folks, you know, can go testify or sign in support of that of Bob Hassell, Senator Bob Hossack, Iowa's State Bank bill, that would be outstanding. If we don't get the state bank, we're going to have to look for nonprofit banks like credit unions or other local banks who are at least more accountable to the people in this community than a national bank. But it's critically important not just that we remove folks like Wells Fargo, but replace them with someone who shares our values.
Speaker 0: I will. I know customers want me to have something. So I'll just say very briefly that this is indeed a remarkable piece of legislation. I think Councilmember Herbold said before she left that we have to be very mindful that while we sit in the luxury of a 70 degree room, there are people putting their lives on the line. There are fighters in this room that this is more than a piece of legislation. This is this affects your culture, your family, everything you believe in. So when I see my colleagues and we start sort of playing inside baseball about certain things, as I guess councils do, I'm very mindful of the fact that we are not the enemy, that the enemy were the egregious actions of Wells Fargo Bank that we do not condone at all. Our enemy is the. Is the federal government's ignorance relative to the DAPL project and what we stand for, what our values are. We have to always be mindful, I think, of who our opponent is and its leaders here in our own local community that have really put the fire under us. And so for that, we thank you. And we are better public servants as a result of your leadership. Thank you. But I'm very sure.
Speaker 1: I want to say thank you, council president, because you just nailed what I have been thinking, which is we've all worked together on this to support our our culture just across the lines in our nation. We've also been here supporting family together. And I just want to acknowledge the hard work that so many of you have done, so many of you who are at Standing Rock. And I also want to acknowledge my. My Holy Mountain Woman sister for what she has done. Councilmember Juarez, last weekend, I know that you and Councilmember Burgess came, helped rewrite some of the language and you made it stronger. Councilmember Gonzalez, so appreciate your amendments to this. And Councilmember Herbold. I love that you rose to the challenge and you certainly exceeded my wildest dreams. But I also appreciate something here in this room that we're not fighting each other, that there is enough negativity across the United States with our federal government right now for us figuring out ways to work together and work with you. I want to acknowledge that. Thank you so much, all of you, for coming.
Speaker 2: Just really quickly, I wanted to also express my gratitude and thanks to all of you for the work that you do every day on behalf of your own community and our collective community. I think it's a really important day for a lot of respects, not just the fact that we are honoring the movement that all of you have fought really hard to build, but that we're doing it together and that we recognize that there are there is absolute power and movement building and absolute power in terms of going out into the streets. But we have to figure out as a community how to translate that power into actual action. And I think that's what we're doing today. We are taking a bold policy step today that is reflective of what this movement wants to see and is asked to see. And I hope that you all believe that that that is our true intent here. I'd also like to say that for me personally, growing up as a migrant farm worker to immigrant parents in central Washington, I have not typically seen myself or people who look like me or sound like me or have similar lived experiences like me represented within the mainstream environmental movement. And this is the first time in in my life where I feel like there is an environmental movement that speaks to me personally, because it's talking about respecting who you are as a person and as a culture and what that means for your livelihood and your family. And as somebody who grew up largely dependent on whether or not the cherry harvest this year was going to be good or bad, and that meant whether I was going to get $100 for school clothes this year or $50 of school clothes for this year, I deeply understand how important it is for us to have that human lived experience perspective reflected in in how we talk about climate change and our environment as a whole. And so I want to thank you so much for lifting that perspective to be part of this conversation around climate change. And I want to lastly end by saying thank you for the honor song. I know that that is a big deal within the native community and with a native country. And I and I just am so humbled and honored to have been able to have been in this room, in this position, receiving that that honor from you all. So with that being said, I honor all of you for the work that you're doing and that I know that you'll continue to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Contrary to what?
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Harrell. Thanks to all the council members for voting yes on this legislation, as far as I know. Seattle is the fourth city to have divested from Wells Fargo. The example that we have set today can be a beacon of hope to activists all around the country looking to change the economic calculus of corporations who think that investing in the Dakota Access pipeline will be good for their bottom line, where making it bad for their bottom line. And I wanted to acknowledge the victory that have already been achieved. The University of California divested to the tune of $475 million the day before our committee vote. But after our committee vote, the Michael Shore Drive divested from Wells Fargo and a Dutch bank, ABN Amro, divested from the pipeline. You know, I think because of at least partly because of the pressure we're building. And my staff member, Ted Vardon, told me that he's actually on the phone right now with an activist from Santa Barbara who wants their city council to divest from Wells Fargo. And they called us to ask us, how did we do this? Real power of this ordnance that can be used as a tool by movements to put real financial pressure on big business by first putting pressure on politicians. And I really agree with those of you who have said that we need to use this momentum not only against a pipeline to put that pipeline to rest once and for all, which is absolutely critical for our fight against climate change and fight for indigenous rights. But we should also use this to build our fight for Seattle's rights to a public bank. I. And what an honor it is to have been part of this inspiring movement. We had a little snow in Seattle yesterday, but that is nothing compared to the images of the courageous people in Standing Rock who battled blizzards to hold the line against the oil lobby and against banks. That is truly inspiring. Some of you have personally traveled to Standing Rock to join the protest. Others have demonstrated in solidarity. Here to our no debt, no double Seattle movement. And together, we are building the power of regular people to fight to take our world back from Trump and the billionaires and the oil lobby. And let's think about locally the power that we have built to this specific movement in Seattle. As you all remember, my fellow activists, you and I, we sent this legislation for introduction on November 1st last year, but by mid-December it still had not been introduced yet in committee. So our movement came to full council to demand its introduction and we won by mid-January, still had not been heard. And our movement called councilmember offices to get its hearing. And we won. The new draft of the legislation was introduced. That was excellent in many ways, but omitted the role of the movement itself. And we moved five amendments to restore that language, and we won. And I want to thank all of you. But I wanted to I mean, first of all, the names of the people who have led this movement are too numerous. And that's what makes it a powerful movement. But I still wanted to name a few names. First of all, I wanted to thank all the staff members Kirsten Armistead, Don Aida and Patricia Lee in central staff for writing this and working with us working so hard. Thanks to the Finance and Administrative Services, which is the city department and also to the city attorney's office, specifically Kristen Lamson, who has been working on this with us since November. But special thanks to Matt Rumley, Milly Kennedy. Alec Cannon, please. All your applause for all of them. Madam Lee, Milly Kennedy, Alec Connon, Rebekah Deutsch, Rachel Hayden, Ray Kingfisher, Paul Wagner and Jackie Ross. All activists and leaders from the indigenous community. My fellow activist Nikita Oliver, who has made this important recognition that the struggles of all oppressed peoples are united. Thanks also to my staff member, Ted Vardon, who many of you know, and Rachel gave a gift for him to which I've accepted on his behalf, which I'll be conveying to him soon. Thanks also. And as I speak now, as a member of the labor movement, thanks also to the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters, who just sent a letter to the Wells Fargo CEO talking about how Wells Fargo's executive vice president, Jeffrey Grubb, through his leadership role on the M.J. Murdoch Charitable Trust, has helped finance the extremist anti-labor Washington State based Freedom Foundation that has fought against workers rights every step of the way. And I know them personally because they were fighting against $15 an hour. And so this further shows that the that the rights of workers as a whole and the survival of the labor movement is so tied to the fight against the Dakota Access pipeline, the fight for black and brown rights, and the fight against climate change. Thanks to everyone who has sacrificed and sweated and bled to build this movement. There is no guarantee that when we fight, we will win. But it is for sure that if we don't fight, we will lose. And I want to thank the indigenous community as a whole for showing so clearly to all of us that our fight for our planet is paramount. And the last point I'll make is that we live in a what I feel is an irrational world. As Oxfam reported, eight people own the same wealth as the half of bottom half of the world's population. That's $3.5 billion. This, in my view, is completely irrational. It is irrational that we are so divided in world that that world buys the power to write laws that benefit the rule of a few at the top and no one else. And nowhere is this more starkly visible than with big banks and oil companies. In any rational world, the trillions that are hand in the hands of the multinational oil companies would not be used to lobby for wars in Iraq and pipelines poisoning our water and climate. If we had any democracy over our economy. Those trillions would be used to turn to transform the energy infrastructure into renewables and to creating decent living standards for all human beings. But sisters and brothers, it's not a rational world under capitalism. So our fight today is very much linked to our larger fight against big business, against Wall Street, against Trump and the billionaire class, and against capitalism itself. And this is the last point I'll make. This is radical. When we build movements to challenge the status quo and when these movements are powerful enough that they force corporate politicians to take a stand in favor of the movement when it is not their instinct that is radical, fighting against the status quo is radical. Let's not allow corporate politicians say that we're doing this anyway. You can just go home. No, we we not only have to recognize the role of the movement in this, we have to redouble the efforts of our movement if we are to win against the Dakota Access Pipeline and against Trump.
Speaker 0: Just once, if there are no further comments on that particular bill or clerk file, we're going to move on to our next agenda item. I don't see anyone in hands going up, so a lot of shredded exigent item into the record, please. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to strengthening The City of Seattle’s policies for conducting City business with partners that are committed to fair business practices; adding Chapter 20.46 to the Seattle Municipal Code; amending the revised City of Seattle Investment Policies adopted by Resolution 31525; and requesting the Mayor and Director of Finance and Administrative Services to take certain actions, including not renewing the Contract for Bank Depository Services with Wells Fargo Bank beyond the initial term and refraining from making new investments in Wells Fargo securities for a period of three years. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_02072017_Res 31731 | Speaker 0: Just once, if there are no further comments on that particular bill or clerk file, we're going to move on to our next agenda item. I don't see anyone in hands going up, so a lot of shredded exigent item into the record, please.
Speaker 8: Agenda item three Resolution 317 31 Designating Mt. Baker McClellan Street Redevelopment Opportunity Zone Pursuant to RTW 7.105. 150 and making findings in support of such designation, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted.
Speaker 9: You just. Thank you. This. This legislation. Councilmember.
Speaker 0: Please. As you exit.
Speaker 6: Please exit by way of midway. Where you.
Speaker 9: Council President Harrell. I just want to register my objection to council members who want staff disrupting our meeting. But anyway, this legislation designates five parcels owned by the Mount Baker Housing Association as a redevelopment opportunity zone. This designation allows Mount Baker Housing Association to be eligible for State Department of Energy grants for the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater on these particular properties once the remediation is complete. Mount Baker Housing Association plans to build approximately 150 units of affordable housing in a mixed use retail and commercial building near the Mount Baker McClellan Light Rail Station. Redevelopment of this area supports the city's planning goals in Mount Baker, consistent with transit oriented development, more housing choices and equitable development. The committee recommends adoption of the resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments about this resolution? I'd like to say a few words about, I think, Councilmember Burgess for his leadership and for the Committee for Pat, for drafting in passing this resolution. This is a great, great piece of collaboration between the city of Seattle, the Department of Ecology, and the Mount Baker Housing Association. As the chair said, it should be reduced when construction and redevelopment begins, which is still a couple of years away. 2 to 4 years away, 150 new affordable housing units will be three blocks from within the Mount Baker light rail station. And there should be no displacements of existing tenants in Mount Baker village. And that becomes a critical piece of what we're trying to do here. My parents actually lived within a couple of blocks of this area for over 30 years, and so I'm quite familiar with it and have walked this area several times and there are significant contamination issues. Eric Pettigrew, our representative in the 37th, has been a strong supporter of this project and helped the Mount Baker Housing Association secure funding from ecology. And for that we want to thank him. We also realize that all PCD, Michelle Chen and others have done an outstanding job in community outreach. They contacted the Mount Baker Community Club, the Mount Baker Hub Business Association, the Rainier Valley Chamber of Commerce across, and many other groups and individuals who are concerned about this area. So I look forward to this project. I think it can be a phenomenal project. We will deal with the issue of displacement to make sure there is none or we've minimized that and we're working to keep that that area a diverse and vibrant community. So for that, I thank you and look forward to supporting it. Any further comments about the resolution? All those in favor of the resolution vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries a resolution is adopted in Charles Senate. Please read the next agenda items four through ten into the record. | Resolution (Res) | A RESOLUTION designating the Mount Baker McClellan Street Redevelopment Opportunity Zone pursuant to RCW 70.105D.150(1) and making findings in support of such designation. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01172017_CB 118870 | Speaker 4: The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee and Item one Council. Bill 118 870 Relief to the Seattle Public Utilities Department declaring surplus certain properties of a portion of the city's total water transmission pipeline. Right of way King County Assessor's parcel. The committee recommends the bill passed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herbold.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council Bill 11 8870 is a piece of legislation that grants a nonexclusive easement over a portion of the city's total river pipeline right of way for access to a private residence in the city of Lake Forest Park. There is no practical alternative access to the property, and granting the easement will limit the potential impact of vehicular traffic on the pipeline right away. The city will receive a one time payment of $3,350 for the value of the easement area granted by the city.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any further comments or questions now? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill.
Speaker 1: Bagshaw Burgess I. Herbold I. Johnson whereas. O'Brien. I want resident herald. I. Aiden. Favor and unopposed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Can we have items two through four inclusive read together, please? | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle Public Utilities Department; declaring as surplus certain portions of a portion of the City’s Tolt Water Transmission Pipeline right-of-way, King County Assessor Parcel number 0326049122, to serve the property commonly known as 19229 47th Ave NE, The City of Lake Forest Park, Washington 98156, Elizabeth Simmons-O’Neill and John Joseph O’Neill, Grantee’s property, King County Assessor Parcel number 4400900040, and granting a non-exclusive easement for existing utility service lines, and the maintenance and use of a driveway access over and across the same. | SeattleCityCouncil |
SeattleCityCouncil_01092017_CB 118887 | Speaker 2: The Report of the Affordable Housing Neighborhoods and Finance Committee Agenda Item for accountable 118887 Relating to city employment, commonly referred to as a fourth quarter 2016 Employment Ordinance designated positions as exempt from civil service status amending section 4.13 points. Your attendance said I misspoke code in ratifying confirming certain prior acts all by two thirds vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Burgess.
Speaker 3: Thank you. As I mentioned at council briefing this morning, this is an ordinance that we take up each quarter during the year. This is the fourth quarter 2016 employment ordinance. It changes six positions and makes them exempt from the civil service and it changes the title of two administrative staff positions and changes that to executive assistant position provisions or positions. Excuse me.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Are there any further comments that please call the rule on the passage of the bill?
Speaker 2: So on Burgess.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gonzalez. I Herbold II Johnson Suarez O'Brian.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed.
Speaker 1: Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read agenda item number five.
Speaker 2: Agenda item five. Constable 118888. Relating to the sale of city real property for multifamily development, declaring the property. | Ordinance (Ord) | AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2016 Employment Ordinance; designating positions as exempt from Civil Service status; amending Section 4.13.010 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts; all by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. | SeattleCityCouncil |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.